So many people are trying to make a living from producing YouTube videos that it makes you wonder how long it'll be before there aren't enough viewers to go round.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
Most people don’t thing about it. But the media says it is so they kind of absorb that by political osmosis. But it’s only skin deep
A fair comment up to a point. People expect governments to sort the tricky stuff out for them. And the EU relationship is a very tricky one for governments to deal with, made massively more difficult by Brexit. Which is why all UK governments are floundering on this issue.
Sure. that’s exactly why your argument “most people think it’s a bad idea” isn’t a good one
So many people are trying to make a living from producing YouTube videos that it makes you wonder how long it'll be before there aren't enough viewers to go round.
We finished Gladiator earlier today because the kids are at my parents and the baby was napping. I don't understand why Hollywood doesn't make these movies any more. I hadn't watched it for over 20 years so it was almost like watching it again for the first time. Absolutely blown away by the storytelling, acting, writing, cinematography. Basically everything.
Comparing it to what wins awards today and it's genuinely just night and day. The quality of movies has really gone downhill and writing specifically is just awful.
I really hope that Odyssey doesn't shit the bed but early signs aren't good. Nolan is a great director and I really respect him so I'll give it a chance even though it's being adapted from a "modern" translation of the original work which has been widely discredited.
If Netflix does manage to take WB over then I think movie making as we know it will be finished. Long form content will now just be a series of carefully scripted dopamine hits to cater to tiktok addled kids who haven't got any attention spans.
Though thankfully Gladiator was produced by Universal Pictures not WB.
Actually seen two very good films recently, Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives out Mystery and surprisingly Running Man which was actually better than the 1980s Arnie original
We can all sleep easy at night knowing this criminal has been punished.
Meanwhile in high streets up and down the country people rob and pilfer stores, or plague high streets, with no come back at all
Trouble is, and you know this, if this regulation is shut down millions will abuse it and [edit] risk ending up committing motorised mayhem without any insurance cover. The first to [edit] kill people with his Grandad's car conveniently previously just sitting on the drive unused, the DM etc will be demanding, erm, this very regulation back.
So why didn’t the magistrate read the mitigation and send it back to DVLA.
The problem is the SJP.
The regulation isn’t the problem. It’s the use of SJPs with magistrates not taking into account mitigation
Because if he had the DVLA would have written to the woman, wasted her time, caused her stress and then prosecuted her again most likely.
Instead he gave her an absolute discharge - so a technical criminal record but no penalty
So a bed ridden woman gets a criminal record. Justice is served. Fantastic. Fuck the silly old woman. Can’t do the time don’t do,the crime, eh !
What a crock. I don’t know how anyone can defend this.
The DVLA could have simply dropped the prosecution, mitigation is never read. SJP cases are an utter disgrace.
The conviction is immediately spent
The DVLA shouldn’t have prosecuted, but in the circumstances the magistrate made the best available decision
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
In my view the magistrate delivered justice.
An absolute discharge
In your view, as you say.
I think the case should never have come to court. The mitigation should have been read and the case dismissed. Not in the public interest. You may think prosecuting bed ridden octogenrians needing carers four times a diary for car insurance offences is okay. I don’t.
Do you not think of the stress and worry this causes people as the process is often the punishment rather than the sentence. Course you don’t. That would require empathy.
Don’t personalise it.
I was discussing what the magistrate did given the situation they found themselves in.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
In my view the magistrate delivered justice.
An absolute discharge
In your view, as you say.
I think the case should never have come to court. The mitigation should have been read and the case dismissed. Not in the public interest. You may think prosecuting bed ridden octogenrians needing carers four times a diary for car insurance offences is okay. I don’t.
Do you not think of the stress and worry this causes people as the process is often the punishment rather than the sentence. Course you don’t. That would require empathy.
Justice is done on a budget with limited resources.
The outcome is the best possible one given that the pensioner / family had allowed the offence to occur
Second best
The best would have been for the DVLA to show judgement and common sense. But perhaps that’s asking too much…
We can all sleep easy at night knowing this criminal has been punished.
Meanwhile in high streets up and down the country people rob and pilfer stores, or plague high streets, with no come back at all
Trouble is, and you know this, if this regulation is shut down millions will abuse it and [edit] risk ending up committing motorised mayhem without any insurance cover. The first to [edit] kill people with his Grandad's car conveniently previously just sitting on the drive unused, the DM etc will be demanding, erm, this very regulation back.
So why didn’t the magistrate read the mitigation and send it back to DVLA.
The problem is the SJP.
The regulation isn’t the problem. It’s the use of SJPs with magistrates not taking into account mitigation
Because if he had the DVLA would have written to the woman, wasted her time, caused her stress and then prosecuted her again most likely.
Instead he gave her an absolute discharge - so a technical criminal record but no penalty
So a bed ridden woman gets a criminal record. Justice is served. Fantastic. Fuck the silly old woman. Can’t do the time don’t do,the crime, eh !
What a crock. I don’t know how anyone can defend this.
The DVLA could have simply dropped the prosecution, mitigation is never read. SJP cases are an utter disgrace.
The conviction is immediately spent
The DVLA shouldn’t have prosecuted, but in the circumstances the magistrate made the best available decision
Macron to Xi: "We are facing the risk of the disintegration of the international order that brought peace to the world for decades, and in this context, the dialogue between China and France is even more essential than ever."
The disintegration is happening because China wants it to happen. Does Macron/French foreign policy have any relevance beyond looking important?
It may not be relevant beyond France but it is very relevant to Macron, as it gives him a chance for a legacy since all his domestic goals have come to nothing and when he leaves office, presumably the year after next, he'll have essentially nothing to show for a decade in charge of France.
Beware a middle-aged man in a hurry ...
Macron did reverse Hollande's wealth taxes but that is about it.
On China he is right to do what he is doing, some in the CPC leadership are apparently not as comfortable as Xi is with being little bothered by Putin's actions
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
In my view the magistrate delivered justice.
An absolute discharge
In your view, as you say.
I think the case should never have come to court. The mitigation should have been read and the case dismissed. Not in the public interest. You may think prosecuting bed ridden octogenrians needing carers four times a diary for car insurance offences is okay. I don’t.
Do you not think of the stress and worry this causes people as the process is often the punishment rather than the sentence. Course you don’t. That would require empathy.
Don’t personalise it.
I was discussing what the magistrate did given the situation they found themselves in.
Sorry, you’re right, you’re a decent chap and I shouldn’t personalise, I’m in the wrong there and I do apologise. few things in life make me angry but the SJPs and how justice fucks over people for small transgressions yet people who commit all sorts,of crimes get away with it because plod can’t be arsed
Watch out Europe, Trump is coming for your elections next MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
What's he going to do? Send MAGA activists to canvass voters?
Help Elon Musk’s Twitter and other social media companies pump out AI slop disinformation?
We can regulate those if we choose, but money is a huge problem too. See how Farage's enthiusiasm for crypto went through the roof when Ref UK received £9 million from crypto-man Chakrit Sakunkrit in August 2025, which he did not have to declare for (iirc) 3 months.
For the UK, one place to watch is the upcoming political funding reform bill.
Personally I think as per usual the Govt will be too timid. I would limit donations to maybe £500 per annum for individuals who live in the UK, and exclude all international donations, and all corporate donations, including Trades Unions.
And then include a measure of Govt funding, perhaps based around existing number of MPs.
So long as trade unions (and industrial associations) are banned from donating then corporates should be too. But Labour will never allow that.
Government funding probably needs to be more than just MPs - insurgent parties need funding too. I don’t like Reform but it would be inequitable to fund them based on a handful of MPs.
Ive just completed a survey organised by Labour Together. It included questions on policy priorities and leadership options, including head-to-head match-ups.
We finished Gladiator earlier today because the kids are at my parents and the baby was napping. I don't understand why Hollywood doesn't make these movies any more. I hadn't watched it for over 20 years so it was almost like watching it again for the first time. Absolutely blown away by the storytelling, acting, writing, cinematography. Basically everything.
Comparing it to what wins awards today and it's genuinely just night and day. The quality of movies has really gone downhill and writing specifically is just awful.
I really hope that Odyssey doesn't shit the bed but early signs aren't good. Nolan is a great director and I really respect him so I'll give it a chance even though it's being adapted from a "modern" translation of the original work which has been widely discredited.
If Netflix does manage to take WB over then I think movie making as we know it will be finished. Long form content will now just be a series of carefully scripted dopamine hits to cater to tiktok addled kids who haven't got any attention spans.
I just watched What Dreams May Come last night - one of Robin Williams serious films from the 90s. It was fantastic. No one would make it today.
We finished Gladiator earlier today because the kids are at my parents and the baby was napping. I don't understand why Hollywood doesn't make these movies any more. I hadn't watched it for over 20 years so it was almost like watching it again for the first time. Absolutely blown away by the storytelling, acting, writing, cinematography. Basically everything.
Comparing it to what wins awards today and it's genuinely just night and day. The quality of movies has really gone downhill and writing specifically is just awful.
I really hope that Odyssey doesn't shit the bed but early signs aren't good. Nolan is a great director and I really respect him so I'll give it a chance even though it's being adapted from a "modern" translation of the original work which has been widely discredited.
If Netflix does manage to take WB over then I think movie making as we know it will be finished. Long form content will now just be a series of carefully scripted dopamine hits to cater to tiktok addled kids who haven't got any attention spans.
Sorry, I can't be bothered to read all that, what's the gist?
We finished Gladiator earlier today because the kids are at my parents and the baby was napping. I don't understand why Hollywood doesn't make these movies any more. I hadn't watched it for over 20 years so it was almost like watching it again for the first time. Absolutely blown away by the storytelling, acting, writing, cinematography. Basically everything.
Comparing it to what wins awards today and it's genuinely just night and day. The quality of movies has really gone downhill and writing specifically is just awful.
I really hope that Odyssey doesn't shit the bed but early signs aren't good. Nolan is a great director and I really respect him so I'll give it a chance even though it's being adapted from a "modern" translation of the original work which has been widely discredited.
If Netflix does manage to take WB over then I think movie making as we know it will be finished. Long form content will now just be a series of carefully scripted dopamine hits to cater to tiktok addled kids who haven't got any attention spans.
I hope that was the original Gladiator.
The new one was so shit I fell asleep, and then went to bed early.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
In my view the magistrate delivered justice.
An absolute discharge
In your view, as you say.
I think the case should never have come to court. The mitigation should have been read and the case dismissed. Not in the public interest. You may think prosecuting bed ridden octogenrians needing carers four times a diary for car insurance offences is okay. I don’t.
Do you not think of the stress and worry this causes people as the process is often the punishment rather than the sentence. Course you don’t. That would require empathy.
Don’t personalise it.
I was discussing what the magistrate did given the situation they found themselves in.
Sorry, you’re right, you’re a decent chap and I shouldn’t personalise, I’m in the wrong there and I do apologise. few things in life make me angry but the SJPs and how justice fucks over people for small transgressions yet people who commit all sorts,of crimes get away with it because plod can’t be arsed
The pensioner still committed an offence, owning a vehicle without insurance and the Justice did entirely the right thing giving her an absolute discharge.
It is for Parliament to change the law so that owning a vehicle without insurance you cannot and will not drive is not an offence, not the CPS, DVLA, police and JPs
So many people are trying to make a living from producing YouTube videos that it makes you wonder how long it'll be before there aren't enough viewers to go round.
We're all influencers too except we're lucky if our followers break double figures, and we don't get paid a bean.
Watch out Europe, Trump is coming for your elections next MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
What's he going to do? Send MAGA activists to canvass voters?
Help Elon Musk’s Twitter and other social media companies pump out AI slop disinformation?
We can regulate those if we choose, but money is a huge problem too. See how Farage's enthiusiasm for crypto went through the roof when Ref UK received £9 million from crypto-man Chakrit Sakunkrit in August 2025, which he did not have to declare for (iirc) 3 months.
For the UK, one place to watch is the upcoming political funding reform bill.
Personally I think as per usual the Govt will be too timid. I would limit donations to maybe £500 per annum for individuals who live in the UK, and exclude all international donations, and all corporate donations, including Trades Unions.
And then include a measure of Govt funding, perhaps based around existing number of MPs.
So long as trade unions (and industrial associations) are banned from donating then corporates should be too. But Labour will never allow that.
Government funding probably needs to be more than just MPs - insurgent parties need funding too. I don’t like Reform but it would be inequitable to fund them based on a handful of MPs.
Farage has always been quite pro-crypto to my knowledge - I suspect that's why a crypto guy has made the donation, rather than the other way round.
We can all sleep easy at night knowing this criminal has been punished.
Meanwhile in high streets up and down the country people rob and pilfer stores, or plague high streets, with no come back at all
Trouble is, and you know this, if this regulation is shut down millions will abuse it and [edit] risk ending up committing motorised mayhem without any insurance cover. The first to [edit] kill people with his Grandad's car conveniently previously just sitting on the drive unused, the DM etc will be demanding, erm, this very regulation back.
So why didn’t the magistrate read the mitigation and send it back to DVLA.
The problem is the SJP.
The regulation isn’t the problem. It’s the use of SJPs with magistrates not taking into account mitigation
Because if he had the DVLA would have written to the woman, wasted her time, caused her stress and then prosecuted her again most likely.
Instead he gave her an absolute discharge - so a technical criminal record but no penalty
So a bed ridden woman gets a criminal record. Justice is served. Fantastic. Fuck the silly old woman. Can’t do the time don’t do,the crime, eh !
What a crock. I don’t know how anyone can defend this.
The DVLA could have simply dropped the prosecution, mitigation is never read. SJP cases are an utter disgrace.
The conviction is immediately spent
The DVLA shouldn’t have prosecuted, but in the circumstances the magistrate made the best available decision
It should have been sent back to the DVLA.
That would - in my view - have caused more stress to the woman and her family. And the DVLA being what they are I suspect they would have reviewed and decided to prosecute again.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
In my view the magistrate delivered justice.
An absolute discharge
In your view, as you say.
I think the case should never have come to court. The mitigation should have been read and the case dismissed. Not in the public interest. You may think prosecuting bed ridden octogenrians needing carers four times a diary for car insurance offences is okay. I don’t.
Do you not think of the stress and worry this causes people as the process is often the punishment rather than the sentence. Course you don’t. That would require empathy.
Don’t personalise it.
I was discussing what the magistrate did given the situation they found themselves in.
Sorry, you’re right, you’re a decent chap and I shouldn’t personalise, I’m in the wrong there and I do apologise. few things in life make me angry but the SJPs and how justice fucks over people for small transgressions yet people who commit all sorts,of crimes get away with it because plod can’t be arsed
Watch out Europe, Trump is coming for your elections next MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
What's he going to do? Send MAGA activists to canvass voters?
Help Elon Musk’s Twitter and other social media companies pump out AI slop disinformation?
We can regulate those if we choose, but money is a huge problem too. See how Farage's enthiusiasm for crypto went through the roof when Ref UK received £9 million from crypto-man Chakrit Sakunkrit in August 2025, which he did not have to declare for (iirc) 3 months.
For the UK, one place to watch is the upcoming political funding reform bill.
Personally I think as per usual the Govt will be too timid. I would limit donations to maybe £500 per annum for individuals who live in the UK, and exclude all international donations, and all corporate donations, including Trades Unions.
And then include a measure of Govt funding, perhaps based around existing number of MPs.
So long as trade unions (and industrial associations) are banned from donating then corporates should be too. But Labour will never allow that.
Government funding probably needs to be more than just MPs - insurgent parties need funding too. I don’t like Reform but it would be inequitable to fund them based on a handful of MPs.
It is individual union members who donate via their affiliated political levy.
The money is merely resting in the account of the union before it gets passed on to the party.
Watch out Europe, Trump is coming for your elections next MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
What's he going to do? Send MAGA activists to canvass voters?
Help Elon Musk’s Twitter and other social media companies pump out AI slop disinformation?
We can regulate those if we choose, but money is a huge problem too. See how Farage's enthiusiasm for crypto went through the roof when Ref UK received £9 million from crypto-man Chakrit Sakunkrit in August 2025, which he did not have to declare for (iirc) 3 months.
For the UK, one place to watch is the upcoming political funding reform bill.
Personally I think as per usual the Govt will be too timid. I would limit donations to maybe £500 per annum for individuals who live in the UK, and exclude all international donations, and all corporate donations, including Trades Unions.
And then include a measure of Govt funding, perhaps based around existing number of MPs.
So long as trade unions (and industrial associations) are banned from donating then corporates should be too. But Labour will never allow that.
Government funding probably needs to be more than just MPs - insurgent parties need funding too. I don’t like Reform but it would be inequitable to fund them based on a handful of MPs.
It is individual union members who donate via their affiliated political levy.
The money is merely resting in the account of the union before it gets passed on to the party.
It’s the union leadership who decides how it is allocated.
Otherwise I would claim that money is merely resting in the account of a company before it gets passed on
We can all sleep easy at night knowing this criminal has been punished.
Meanwhile in high streets up and down the country people rob and pilfer stores, or plague high streets, with no come back at all
Trouble is, and you know this, if this regulation is shut down millions will abuse it and [edit] risk ending up committing motorised mayhem without any insurance cover. The first to [edit] kill people with his Grandad's car conveniently previously just sitting on the drive unused, the DM etc will be demanding, erm, this very regulation back.
So why didn’t the magistrate read the mitigation and send it back to DVLA.
The problem is the SJP.
The regulation isn’t the problem. It’s the use of SJPs with magistrates not taking into account mitigation
Because if he had the DVLA would have written to the woman, wasted her time, caused her stress and then prosecuted her again most likely.
Instead he gave her an absolute discharge - so a technical criminal record but no penalty
So a bed ridden woman gets a criminal record. Justice is served. Fantastic. Fuck the silly old woman. Can’t do the time don’t do,the crime, eh !
What a crock. I don’t know how anyone can defend this.
The DVLA could have simply dropped the prosecution, mitigation is never read. SJP cases are an utter disgrace.
The conviction is immediately spent
The DVLA shouldn’t have prosecuted, but in the circumstances the magistrate made the best available decision
It should have been sent back to the DVLA.
That would - in my view - have caused more stress to the woman and her family. And the DVLA being what they are I suspect they would have reviewed and decided to prosecute again.
Watch out Europe, Trump is coming for your elections next MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
What's he going to do? Send MAGA activists to canvass voters?
Help Elon Musk’s Twitter and other social media companies pump out AI slop disinformation?
We can regulate those if we choose, but money is a huge problem too. See how Farage's enthiusiasm for crypto went through the roof when Ref UK received £9 million from crypto-man Chakrit Sakunkrit in August 2025, which he did not have to declare for (iirc) 3 months.
For the UK, one place to watch is the upcoming political funding reform bill.
Personally I think as per usual the Govt will be too timid. I would limit donations to maybe £500 per annum for individuals who live in the UK, and exclude all international donations, and all corporate donations, including Trades Unions.
And then include a measure of Govt funding, perhaps based around existing number of MPs.
So long as trade unions (and industrial associations) are banned from donating then corporates should be too. But Labour will never allow that.
Government funding probably needs to be more than just MPs - insurgent parties need funding too. I don’t like Reform but it would be inequitable to fund them based on a handful of MPs.
It is individual union members who donate via their affiliated political levy.
The money is merely resting in the account of the union before it gets passed on to the party.
It’s the union leadership who decides how it is allocated.
Otherwise I would claim that money is merely resting in the account of a company before it gets passed on
These things need to be equitable
Individual members choose to opt in to the affiliated levy. It is that extra bit of their membership fee that goes to the Labour Party.
So many people are trying to make a living from producing YouTube videos that it makes you wonder how long it'll be before there aren't enough viewers to go round.
We're all influencers too except we're lucky if our followers break double figures, and we don't get paid a bean.
We can all sleep easy at night knowing this criminal has been punished.
Meanwhile in high streets up and down the country people rob and pilfer stores, or plague high streets, with no come back at all
Trouble is, and you know this, if this regulation is shut down millions will abuse it and [edit] risk ending up committing motorised mayhem without any insurance cover. The first to [edit] kill people with his Grandad's car conveniently previously just sitting on the drive unused, the DM etc will be demanding, erm, this very regulation back.
So why didn’t the magistrate read the mitigation and send it back to DVLA.
The problem is the SJP.
The regulation isn’t the problem. It’s the use of SJPs with magistrates not taking into account mitigation
Because if he had the DVLA would have written to the woman, wasted her time, caused her stress and then prosecuted her again most likely.
Instead he gave her an absolute discharge - so a technical criminal record but no penalty
So a bed ridden woman gets a criminal record. Justice is served. Fantastic. Fuck the silly old woman. Can’t do the time don’t do,the crime, eh !
What a crock. I don’t know how anyone can defend this.
The DVLA could have simply dropped the prosecution, mitigation is never read. SJP cases are an utter disgrace.
The conviction is immediately spent
The DVLA shouldn’t have prosecuted, but in the circumstances the magistrate made the best available decision
It should have been sent back to the DVLA.
That would - in my view - have caused more stress to the woman and her family. And the DVLA being what they are I suspect they would have reviewed and decided to prosecute again.
We finished Gladiator earlier today because the kids are at my parents and the baby was napping. I don't understand why Hollywood doesn't make these movies any more. I hadn't watched it for over 20 years so it was almost like watching it again for the first time. Absolutely blown away by the storytelling, acting, writing, cinematography. Basically everything.
Comparing it to what wins awards today and it's genuinely just night and day. The quality of movies has really gone downhill and writing specifically is just awful.
I really hope that Odyssey doesn't shit the bed but early signs aren't good. Nolan is a great director and I really respect him so I'll give it a chance even though it's being adapted from a "modern" translation of the original work which has been widely discredited.
If Netflix does manage to take WB over then I think movie making as we know it will be finished. Long form content will now just be a series of carefully scripted dopamine hits to cater to tiktok addled kids who haven't got any attention spans.
I just watched What Dreams May Come last night - one of Robin Williams serious films from the 90s. It was fantastic. No one would make it today.
Part of the problem is that they don't need to- anyone who wants to watch a film exploring the ideas of life, death, love, Heaven and Hell can see the version starring Robin Williams. An idea in the form of a movie stored digitally is going to clutter up the culture forever. Even without AI chewing up and regurgitating all that has been thought and said, that is going to be a problem for creatives in the decades to come. (See also Disney, who struggle to come up with a better set of ideas than turning classic cartoons into live action films.)
Watch out Europe, Trump is coming for your elections next MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
What's he going to do? Send MAGA activists to canvass voters?
Help Elon Musk’s Twitter and other social media companies pump out AI slop disinformation?
We can regulate those if we choose, but money is a huge problem too. See how Farage's enthiusiasm for crypto went through the roof when Ref UK received £9 million from crypto-man Chakrit Sakunkrit in August 2025, which he did not have to declare for (iirc) 3 months.
For the UK, one place to watch is the upcoming political funding reform bill.
Personally I think as per usual the Govt will be too timid. I would limit donations to maybe £500 per annum for individuals who live in the UK, and exclude all international donations, and all corporate donations, including Trades Unions.
And then include a measure of Govt funding, perhaps based around existing number of MPs.
So long as trade unions (and industrial associations) are banned from donating then corporates should be too. But Labour will never allow that.
Government funding probably needs to be more than just MPs - insurgent parties need funding too. I don’t like Reform but it would be inequitable to fund them based on a handful of MPs.
It is individual union members who donate via their affiliated political levy.
The money is merely resting in the account of the union before it gets passed on to the party.
It’s the union leadership who decides how it is allocated.
Otherwise I would claim that money is merely resting in the account of a company before it gets passed on
These things need to be equitable
Individual members choose to opt in to the affiliated levy. It is that extra bit of their membership fee that goes to the Labour Party.
Is it opt in now? I thought Blair changed it to opt out. And IIRC it’s not tied to any one party just to the union’s political fund
We finished Gladiator earlier today because the kids are at my parents and the baby was napping. I don't understand why Hollywood doesn't make these movies any more. I hadn't watched it for over 20 years so it was almost like watching it again for the first time. Absolutely blown away by the storytelling, acting, writing, cinematography. Basically everything.
Comparing it to what wins awards today and it's genuinely just night and day. The quality of movies has really gone downhill and writing specifically is just awful.
I really hope that Odyssey doesn't shit the bed but early signs aren't good. Nolan is a great director and I really respect him so I'll give it a chance even though it's being adapted from a "modern" translation of the original work which has been widely discredited.
If Netflix does manage to take WB over then I think movie making as we know it will be finished. Long form content will now just be a series of carefully scripted dopamine hits to cater to tiktok addled kids who haven't got any attention spans.
I hope that was the original Gladiator.
The new one was so shit I fell asleep, and then went to bed early.
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED? IS THIS NOT WHY YOU ARE HERE?"
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
Most people don’t thing about it. But the media says it is so they kind of absorb that by political osmosis. But it’s only skin deep
A fair comment up to a point. People expect governments to sort the tricky stuff out for them. And the EU relationship is a very tricky one for governments to deal with, made massively more difficult by Brexit. Which is why all UK governments are floundering on this issue.
Sure. that’s exactly why your argument “most people think it’s a bad idea” isn’t a good one
Except most people do think Brexit was a bad idea according to polling, and there's no reason to believe they feel any less strongly about this issue than anything else they might be polled on. Also the mess is real and nowhere near to being resolved.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
In my view the magistrate delivered justice.
An absolute discharge
In your view, as you say.
I think the case should never have come to court. The mitigation should have been read and the case dismissed. Not in the public interest. You may think prosecuting bed ridden octogenrians needing carers four times a diary for car insurance offences is okay. I don’t.
Do you not think of the stress and worry this causes people as the process is often the punishment rather than the sentence. Course you don’t. That would require empathy.
Don’t personalise it.
I was discussing what the magistrate did given the situation they found themselves in.
Sorry, you’re right, you’re a decent chap and I shouldn’t personalise, I’m in the wrong there and I do apologise. few things in life make me angry but the SJPs and how justice fucks over people for small transgressions yet people who commit all sorts,of crimes get away with it because plod can’t be arsed
The pensioner still committed an offence, owning a vehicle without insurance and the Justice did entirely the right thing giving her an absolute discharge.
It is for Parliament to change the law so that owning a vehicle without insurance you cannot and will not drive is not an offence, not the CPS, DVLA, police and JPs
A master criminal. An old woman, bedridden, needing carers four times a day. How is justice served prosecuting her ? Technically an offence was committed but there is plenty of mitigation here. No, the justice could have referred it back. There was no need for a prosecution in this case. The problem is the SJP.
We live in a society where small transgressions are smashed down hard by our law and order system yet serial offenders and those that stick two fingers up at the system just get away with it.
We can all sleep easy at night knowing this criminal has been punished.
Meanwhile in high streets up and down the country people rob and pilfer stores, or plague high streets, with no come back at all
Trouble is, and you know this, if this regulation is shut down millions will abuse it and [edit] risk ending up committing motorised mayhem without any insurance cover. The first to [edit] kill people with his Grandad's car conveniently previously just sitting on the drive unused, the DM etc will be demanding, erm, this very regulation back.
So why didn’t the magistrate read the mitigation and send it back to DVLA.
The problem is the SJP.
The regulation isn’t the problem. It’s the use of SJPs with magistrates not taking into account mitigation
Because if he had the DVLA would have written to the woman, wasted her time, caused her stress and then prosecuted her again most likely.
Instead he gave her an absolute discharge - so a technical criminal record but no penalty
So a bed ridden woman gets a criminal record. Justice is served. Fantastic. Fuck the silly old woman. Can’t do the time don’t do,the crime, eh !
What a crock. I don’t know how anyone can defend this.
The DVLA could have simply dropped the prosecution, mitigation is never read. SJP cases are an utter disgrace.
The conviction is immediately spent
The DVLA shouldn’t have prosecuted, but in the circumstances the magistrate made the best available decision
It should have been sent back to the DVLA.
That would - in my view - have caused more stress to the woman and her family. And the DVLA being what they are I suspect they would have reviewed and decided to prosecute again.
Would they really when they saw the mitigation ?
It’s sweet how much you think the DVlA cares
Well its not me I just read legal opinion on Twitter saying they would consider it. I’m a layman, I wouldn’t know.
Not sure about the need for the ‘sweet’ comment either n🤷♂️
Watch out Europe, Trump is coming for your elections next MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
What's he going to do? Send MAGA activists to canvass voters?
Help Elon Musk’s Twitter and other social media companies pump out AI slop disinformation?
We can regulate those if we choose, but money is a huge problem too. See how Farage's enthiusiasm for crypto went through the roof when Ref UK received £9 million from crypto-man Chakrit Sakunkrit in August 2025, which he did not have to declare for (iirc) 3 months.
For the UK, one place to watch is the upcoming political funding reform bill.
Personally I think as per usual the Govt will be too timid. I would limit donations to maybe £500 per annum for individuals who live in the UK, and exclude all international donations, and all corporate donations, including Trades Unions.
And then include a measure of Govt funding, perhaps based around existing number of MPs.
So long as trade unions (and industrial associations) are banned from donating then corporates should be too. But Labour will never allow that.
Government funding probably needs to be more than just MPs - insurgent parties need funding too. I don’t like Reform but it would be inequitable to fund them based on a handful of MPs.
Farage has always been quite pro-crypto to my knowledge - I suspect that's why a crypto guy has made the donation, rather than the other way round.
So pro unregulated movement of money - says a lot really.
We finished Gladiator earlier today because the kids are at my parents and the baby was napping. I don't understand why Hollywood doesn't make these movies any more. I hadn't watched it for over 20 years so it was almost like watching it again for the first time. Absolutely blown away by the storytelling, acting, writing, cinematography. Basically everything.
Comparing it to what wins awards today and it's genuinely just night and day. The quality of movies has really gone downhill and writing specifically is just awful.
I really hope that Odyssey doesn't shit the bed but early signs aren't good. Nolan is a great director and I really respect him so I'll give it a chance even though it's being adapted from a "modern" translation of the original work which has been widely discredited.
If Netflix does manage to take WB over then I think movie making as we know it will be finished. Long form content will now just be a series of carefully scripted dopamine hits to cater to tiktok addled kids who haven't got any attention spans.
I hope that was the original Gladiator.
The new one was so shit I fell asleep, and then went to bed early.
Watch out Europe, Trump is coming for your elections next MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
What's he going to do? Send MAGA activists to canvass voters?
Help Elon Musk’s Twitter and other social media companies pump out AI slop disinformation?
We can regulate those if we choose, but money is a huge problem too. See how Farage's enthiusiasm for crypto went through the roof when Ref UK received £9 million from crypto-man Chakrit Sakunkrit in August 2025, which he did not have to declare for (iirc) 3 months.
For the UK, one place to watch is the upcoming political funding reform bill.
Personally I think as per usual the Govt will be too timid. I would limit donations to maybe £500 per annum for individuals who live in the UK, and exclude all international donations, and all corporate donations, including Trades Unions.
And then include a measure of Govt funding, perhaps based around existing number of MPs.
So long as trade unions (and industrial associations) are banned from donating then corporates should be too. But Labour will never allow that.
Government funding probably needs to be more than just MPs - insurgent parties need funding too. I don’t like Reform but it would be inequitable to fund them based on a handful of MPs.
It is individual union members who donate via their affiliated political levy.
The money is merely resting in the account of the union before it gets passed on to the party.
It’s the union leadership who decides how it is allocated.
Otherwise I would claim that money is merely resting in the account of a company before it gets passed on
These things need to be equitable
Individual members choose to opt in to the affiliated levy. It is that extra bit of their membership fee that goes to the Labour Party.
Is it opt in now? I thought Blair changed it to opt out. And IIRC it’s not tied to any one party just to the union’s political fund
It may well have changed since I was last a union member.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
Most people don’t thing about it. But the media says it is so they kind of absorb that by political osmosis. But it’s only skin deep
A fair comment up to a point. People expect governments to sort the tricky stuff out for them. And the EU relationship is a very tricky one for governments to deal with, made massively more difficult by Brexit. Which is why all UK governments are floundering on this issue.
Sure. that’s exactly why your argument “most people think it’s a bad idea” isn’t a good one
Except most people do think Brexit was a bad idea according to polling, and there's no reason to believe they feel any less strongly about this issue than anything else they might be polled on. Also the mess is real and nowhere near to being resolved.
We finished Gladiator earlier today because the kids are at my parents and the baby was napping. I don't understand why Hollywood doesn't make these movies any more. I hadn't watched it for over 20 years so it was almost like watching it again for the first time. Absolutely blown away by the storytelling, acting, writing, cinematography. Basically everything.
Comparing it to what wins awards today and it's genuinely just night and day. The quality of movies has really gone downhill and writing specifically is just awful.
I really hope that Odyssey doesn't shit the bed but early signs aren't good. Nolan is a great director and I really respect him so I'll give it a chance even though it's being adapted from a "modern" translation of the original work which has been widely discredited.
If Netflix does manage to take WB over then I think movie making as we know it will be finished. Long form content will now just be a series of carefully scripted dopamine hits to cater to tiktok addled kids who haven't got any attention spans.
I think the saving grace is that top directors, writers and actors are now seeing the benefit (and financial rewards and recognition) of doing limited series so you are able to get good story arcs, strong character development and plot which is something harder for films to achieve.
I rarely watch films these days apart from classics that I know are great - films I can watch over and over and the fact of knowing the plot isn’t ruined because of the quality of story, acting etc.
So Hollywood will likely churn out pull for audiences with short attention spans and inability to delve deep (someone here posted the other day about the problem English Lit courses are having with students unwilling/unable to get into classic literature due to the lack of simplicity in the writing) and there will remain a market for quality depth.
We can all sleep easy at night knowing this criminal has been punished.
Meanwhile in high streets up and down the country people rob and pilfer stores, or plague high streets, with no come back at all
Trouble is, and you know this, if this regulation is shut down millions will abuse it and [edit] risk ending up committing motorised mayhem without any insurance cover. The first to [edit] kill people with his Grandad's car conveniently previously just sitting on the drive unused, the DM etc will be demanding, erm, this very regulation back.
So why didn’t the magistrate read the mitigation and send it back to DVLA.
The problem is the SJP.
The regulation isn’t the problem. It’s the use of SJPs with magistrates not taking into account mitigation
Because if he had the DVLA would have written to the woman, wasted her time, caused her stress and then prosecuted her again most likely.
Instead he gave her an absolute discharge - so a technical criminal record but no penalty
So a bed ridden woman gets a criminal record. Justice is served. Fantastic. Fuck the silly old woman. Can’t do the time don’t do,the crime, eh !
What a crock. I don’t know how anyone can defend this.
The DVLA could have simply dropped the prosecution, mitigation is never read. SJP cases are an utter disgrace.
The conviction is immediately spent
The DVLA shouldn’t have prosecuted, but in the circumstances the magistrate made the best available decision
It should have been sent back to the DVLA.
That would - in my view - have caused more stress to the woman and her family. And the DVLA being what they are I suspect they would have reviewed and decided to prosecute again.
Would they really when they saw the mitigation ?
It’s sweet how much you think the DVlA cares
Well its not me I just read legal opinion on Twitter saying they would consider it. I’m a layman, I wouldn’t know.
Not sure about the need for the ‘sweet’ comment either n🤷♂️
We finished Gladiator earlier today because the kids are at my parents and the baby was napping. I don't understand why Hollywood doesn't make these movies any more. I hadn't watched it for over 20 years so it was almost like watching it again for the first time. Absolutely blown away by the storytelling, acting, writing, cinematography. Basically everything.
Comparing it to what wins awards today and it's genuinely just night and day. The quality of movies has really gone downhill and writing specifically is just awful.
I really hope that Odyssey doesn't shit the bed but early signs aren't good. Nolan is a great director and I really respect him so I'll give it a chance even though it's being adapted from a "modern" translation of the original work which has been widely discredited.
If Netflix does manage to take WB over then I think movie making as we know it will be finished. Long form content will now just be a series of carefully scripted dopamine hits to cater to tiktok addled kids who haven't got any attention spans.
Gladiator is one of the best films ever made.
Regarding Odyssey, I do rate Nolan's previous movies, though perhaps Tenet was his weakest effort in that it openly asked us to "Don't try to understand it, just feel it" regarding negative entropy (ie. objects experiencing time in reverse)!
We can all sleep easy at night knowing this criminal has been punished.
Meanwhile in high streets up and down the country people rob and pilfer stores, or plague high streets, with no come back at all
Trouble is, and you know this, if this regulation is shut down millions will abuse it and [edit] risk ending up committing motorised mayhem without any insurance cover. The first to [edit] kill people with his Grandad's car conveniently previously just sitting on the drive unused, the DM etc will be demanding, erm, this very regulation back.
So why didn’t the magistrate read the mitigation and send it back to DVLA.
The problem is the SJP.
The regulation isn’t the problem. It’s the use of SJPs with magistrates not taking into account mitigation
Because if he had the DVLA would have written to the woman, wasted her time, caused her stress and then prosecuted her again most likely.
Instead he gave her an absolute discharge - so a technical criminal record but no penalty
So a bed ridden woman gets a criminal record. Justice is served. Fantastic. Fuck the silly old woman. Can’t do the time don’t do,the crime, eh !
What a crock. I don’t know how anyone can defend this.
The DVLA could have simply dropped the prosecution, mitigation is never read. SJP cases are an utter disgrace.
The conviction is immediately spent
The DVLA shouldn’t have prosecuted, but in the circumstances the magistrate made the best available decision
It should have been sent back to the DVLA.
That would - in my view - have caused more stress to the woman and her family. And the DVLA being what they are I suspect they would have reviewed and decided to prosecute again.
Would they really when they saw the mitigation ?
It’s sweet how much you think the DVlA cares
Well its not me I just read legal opinion on Twitter saying they would consider it. I’m a layman, I wouldn’t know.
Not sure about the need for the ‘sweet’ comment either n🤷♂️
We finished Gladiator earlier today because the kids are at my parents and the baby was napping. I don't understand why Hollywood doesn't make these movies any more. I hadn't watched it for over 20 years so it was almost like watching it again for the first time. Absolutely blown away by the storytelling, acting, writing, cinematography. Basically everything.
Comparing it to what wins awards today and it's genuinely just night and day. The quality of movies has really gone downhill and writing specifically is just awful.
I really hope that Odyssey doesn't shit the bed but early signs aren't good. Nolan is a great director and I really respect him so I'll give it a chance even though it's being adapted from a "modern" translation of the original work which has been widely discredited.
If Netflix does manage to take WB over then I think movie making as we know it will be finished. Long form content will now just be a series of carefully scripted dopamine hits to cater to tiktok addled kids who haven't got any attention spans.
Sorry, I can't be bothered to read all that, what's the gist?
We mortals are but shadows and dust, isam. Shadows and dust!
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
Most people don’t thing about it. But the media says it is so they kind of absorb that by political osmosis. But it’s only skin deep
A fair comment up to a point. People expect governments to sort the tricky stuff out for them. And the EU relationship is a very tricky one for governments to deal with, made massively more difficult by Brexit. Which is why all UK governments are floundering on this issue.
Sure. that’s exactly why your argument “most people think it’s a bad idea” isn’t a good one
Except most people do think Brexit was a bad idea according to polling, and there's no reason to believe they feel any less strongly about this issue than anything else they might be polled on. Also the mess is real and nowhere near to being resolved.
Now your just contradicting yourself
No I'm not. I'm contradicting you. Expecting governments to sort out a mess that was a consequence of their* vote is not the same as saying they don't care about those consequences.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
That's why people like Liz Truss have particular credibility on the subject.
So many people are trying to make a living from producing YouTube videos that it makes you wonder how long it'll be before there aren't enough viewers to go round.
We're all influencers too except we're lucky if our followers break double figures, and we don't get paid a bean.
Oh well. I guess there are the betting tips.
Is there such a thing as a PB influencer?
PB influenza, leaves you feverish, queasy and ears ringing from folk fond of the sound of their own opinions. Diarrhea optional.
We finished Gladiator earlier today because the kids are at my parents and the baby was napping. I don't understand why Hollywood doesn't make these movies any more. I hadn't watched it for over 20 years so it was almost like watching it again for the first time. Absolutely blown away by the storytelling, acting, writing, cinematography. Basically everything.
Comparing it to what wins awards today and it's genuinely just night and day. The quality of movies has really gone downhill and writing specifically is just awful.
I really hope that Odyssey doesn't shit the bed but early signs aren't good. Nolan is a great director and I really respect him so I'll give it a chance even though it's being adapted from a "modern" translation of the original work which has been widely discredited.
If Netflix does manage to take WB over then I think movie making as we know it will be finished. Long form content will now just be a series of carefully scripted dopamine hits to cater to tiktok addled kids who haven't got any attention spans.
I hope that was the original Gladiator.
The new one was so shit I fell asleep, and then went to bed early.
Absolutely not the sequel.
It's interesting isn't it?
I think it's the same with PC games. There are loads of amazing games from the nineties that have far better playability than modern equivalents, that are obsessed by graphics but are far less fun to play.
November data pointed to a sharp and accelerated reduction in output levels across the construction sector amid widespread reports of challenging market conditions.
New orders also decreased to the greatest extent since May 2020. Many construction companies commented on weak client confidence, alongside delayed spending decisions linked to uncertainty ahead of the Budget.
At 39.4 in November, down from 44.1 in October, the headline S&P Global UK Construction Purchasing Managers’ Index™ (PMI®) – a seasonally adjusted index tracking changes in total industry activity – was the lowest since May 2020. Lower volumes of construction output have now been recorded for eleven months in a row.
Sub-sector data showed that housing activity (index at 35.4), commercial construction (43.8) and civil engineering (30.0) all experienced the fastest downturns in activity for five-and-a-half years. Survey respondents commented on fragile market confidence, delays with the release of new projects and a general lack of incoming new work.
Total new business decreased at a rapid pace in November. Around 44% of the survey panel reported a fall in new orders, while only 17% signalled an increase. Aside from the pandemic, the resulting seasonally adjusted New Orders Index pointed to the fastest downturn in new work since early-2009. Construction companies commented on sales headwinds due to risk aversion among clients, worries about the UK economic outlook and elevated business uncertainty ahead of the Budget.
Employment numbers across the construction sector decreased for the eleventh consecutive month in November, reflecting a lack of new work to replace completed projects and elevated wage pressures. The latest fall in staffing levels was the steepest since August 2020. Subcontractor usage also decreased, as has been the case in each month since December 2024.
We finished Gladiator earlier today because the kids are at my parents and the baby was napping. I don't understand why Hollywood doesn't make these movies any more. I hadn't watched it for over 20 years so it was almost like watching it again for the first time. Absolutely blown away by the storytelling, acting, writing, cinematography. Basically everything.
Comparing it to what wins awards today and it's genuinely just night and day. The quality of movies has really gone downhill and writing specifically is just awful.
I really hope that Odyssey doesn't shit the bed but early signs aren't good. Nolan is a great director and I really respect him so I'll give it a chance even though it's being adapted from a "modern" translation of the original work which has been widely discredited.
If Netflix does manage to take WB over then I think movie making as we know it will be finished. Long form content will now just be a series of carefully scripted dopamine hits to cater to tiktok addled kids who haven't got any attention spans.
I hope that was the original Gladiator.
The new one was so shit I fell asleep, and then went to bed early.
Absolutely not the sequel.
It's interesting isn't it?
I think it's the same with PC games. There are loads of amazing games from the nineties that have far better playability than modern equivalents, that are obsessed by graphics but are far less fun to play.
I think Chris Sawyer had it right.
I think AAA big budget games are definitely much worse than they've ever been but in the low budget space there's some amazing titles. Plus this generation gave us Elden Ring which I think is the greatest game of all time, at least for me.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
That's why people like Liz Truss have particular credibility on the subject.
Liz Truss saw what a success it was and decided she was now in favour. The ultimate contra-indicator.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
In my view the magistrate delivered justice.
An absolute discharge
In your view, as you say.
I think the case should never have come to court. The mitigation should have been read and the case dismissed. Not in the public interest. You may think prosecuting bed ridden octogenrians needing carers four times a diary for car insurance offences is okay. I don’t.
Do you not think of the stress and worry this causes people as the process is often the punishment rather than the sentence. Course you don’t. That would require empathy.
Justice is done on a budget with limited resources.
The outcome is the best possible one given that the pensioner / family had allowed the offence to occur
Indeed. Damn them all for this dreadful offence. We all sleep easier after this most just and fair prosecution.
A bedbound pensioner needing carers in four times a day to give her a modicum of a standard of living, How dare she and her family allow such a heinous offence to occur. She rightly goes to her grave with this on her. 👍Won’t be long either given her age and condition.
Not like that teenager who now has a criminal conviction over a car she didn't know had been bought for her. All being well and she lives a long life, that will be a constant companion.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
In my view the magistrate delivered justice.
An absolute discharge
In your view, as you say.
I think the case should never have come to court. The mitigation should have been read and the case dismissed. Not in the public interest. You may think prosecuting bed ridden octogenrians needing carers four times a diary for car insurance offences is okay. I don’t.
Do you not think of the stress and worry this causes people as the process is often the punishment rather than the sentence. Course you don’t. That would require empathy.
Don’t personalise it.
I was discussing what the magistrate did given the situation they found themselves in.
Sorry, you’re right, you’re a decent chap and I shouldn’t personalise, I’m in the wrong there and I do apologise. few things in life make me angry but the SJPs and how justice fucks over people for small transgressions yet people who commit all sorts,of crimes get away with it because plod can’t be arsed
The pensioner still committed an offence, owning a vehicle without insurance and the Justice did entirely the right thing giving her an absolute discharge.
It is for Parliament to change the law so that owning a vehicle without insurance you cannot and will not drive is not an offence, not the CPS, DVLA, police and JPs
A master criminal. An old woman, bedridden, needing carers four times a day. How is justice served prosecuting her ? Technically an offence was committed but there is plenty of mitigation here. No, the justice could have referred it back. There was no need for a prosecution in this case. The problem is the SJP.
We live in a society where small transgressions are smashed down hard by our law and order system yet serial offenders and those that stick two fingers up at the system just get away with it.
The law is the law unfortunately, even if justice was done in the sentence via the discharge the law as it stands required her to be prosecuted.
You are also reading too many tabloids, serial offenders who repeatedly offend get sent to jail if caught, even suspended sentences and community orders and fines are normally for first time offenders
Watch out Europe, Trump is coming for your elections next MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
What's he going to do? Send MAGA activists to canvass voters?
Help Elon Musk’s Twitter and other social media companies pump out AI slop disinformation?
We can regulate those if we choose, but money is a huge problem too. See how Farage's enthiusiasm for crypto went through the roof when Ref UK received £9 million from crypto-man Chakrit Sakunkrit in August 2025, which he did not have to declare for (iirc) 3 months.
For the UK, one place to watch is the upcoming political funding reform bill.
Personally I think as per usual the Govt will be too timid. I would limit donations to maybe £500 per annum for individuals who live in the UK, and exclude all international donations, and all corporate donations, including Trades Unions.
And then include a measure of Govt funding, perhaps based around existing number of MPs.
So long as trade unions (and industrial associations) are banned from donating then corporates should be too. But Labour will never allow that.
Government funding probably needs to be more than just MPs - insurgent parties need funding too. I don’t like Reform but it would be inequitable to fund them based on a handful of MPs.
Farage has always been quite pro-crypto to my knowledge - I suspect that's why a crypto guy has made the donation, rather than the other way round.
Grifter recognises a grift when he sees it. Just like his boy Trump.
November data pointed to a sharp and accelerated reduction in output levels across the construction sector amid widespread reports of challenging market conditions.
New orders also decreased to the greatest extent since May 2020. Many construction companies commented on weak client confidence, alongside delayed spending decisions linked to uncertainty ahead of the Budget.
At 39.4 in November, down from 44.1 in October, the headline S&P Global UK Construction Purchasing Managers’ Index™ (PMI®) – a seasonally adjusted index tracking changes in total industry activity – was the lowest since May 2020. Lower volumes of construction output have now been recorded for eleven months in a row.
Sub-sector data showed that housing activity (index at 35.4), commercial construction (43.8) and civil engineering (30.0) all experienced the fastest downturns in activity for five-and-a-half years. Survey respondents commented on fragile market confidence, delays with the release of new projects and a general lack of incoming new work.
Total new business decreased at a rapid pace in November. Around 44% of the survey panel reported a fall in new orders, while only 17% signalled an increase. Aside from the pandemic, the resulting seasonally adjusted New Orders Index pointed to the fastest downturn in new work since early-2009. Construction companies commented on sales headwinds due to risk aversion among clients, worries about the UK economic outlook and elevated business uncertainty ahead of the Budget.
Employment numbers across the construction sector decreased for the eleventh consecutive month in November, reflecting a lack of new work to replace completed projects and elevated wage pressures. The latest fall in staffing levels was the steepest since August 2020. Subcontractor usage also decreased, as has been the case in each month since December 2024.
Its revealing how those people who are looking for an economic magic wand by creating some non-existent customs union with the EU are totally silent about the catastrophe the Labour government has caused in the construction sector.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
Not sure ignoring people who disagree with you is the greatest way to persuade them to change their mind. The whole point of democracy is that different people can have different but valid opinions.
They can do but sometimes people are just wrong. If you keep believing people who lie and don't understand how the world works don't be surprised if you keep making bad decisions.
Anyone seen Russell Crowe trying to do Goering yet?
Any good?
Fantastic. Highly recommended. One sequence which I found really difficult to watch
Why, was he singing?
It was a court scene using original film footage from the holocaust but not the usual photos that we are all familiar with. They haven’t pulled their punches in the selection
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
Not sure ignoring people who disagree with you is the greatest way to persuade them to change their mind. The whole point of democracy is that different people can have different but valid opinions.
They can do but sometimes people are just wrong. If you keep believing people who lie and don't understand how the world works don't be surprised if you keep making bad decisions.
If only our politicians down the decades had trusted the democratic process instead of being afraid of the people, it's very likely we'd never have left.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
In my view the magistrate delivered justice.
An absolute discharge
In your view, as you say.
I think the case should never have come to court. The mitigation should have been read and the case dismissed. Not in the public interest. You may think prosecuting bed ridden octogenrians needing carers four times a diary for car insurance offences is okay. I don’t.
Do you not think of the stress and worry this causes people as the process is often the punishment rather than the sentence. Course you don’t. That would require empathy.
Justice is done on a budget with limited resources.
The outcome is the best possible one given that the pensioner / family had allowed the offence to occur
Indeed. Damn them all for this dreadful offence. We all sleep easier after this most just and fair prosecution.
A bedbound pensioner needing carers in four times a day to give her a modicum of a standard of living, How dare she and her family allow such a heinous offence to occur. She rightly goes to her grave with this on her. 👍Won’t be long either given her age and condition.
Not like that teenager who now has a criminal conviction over a car she didn't know had been bought for her. All being well and she lives a long life, that will be a constant companion.
You’re right. I remember reading about that. Technically she’s in the wrong but how on earth is a prosecution justified ?
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
A good way to maintain your ignorance I suppose.
Because things are playing out exactly as Dan Hannan predicted, right? One thing I have earned from working in the financial services sector is don't keep listening to people who are wrong about everything. Not if you want to protect your clients' money and keep your own job. As a country we can't afford to keep making stupid decisions. The world is an unforgiving place for people who won't learn from their mistakes and correct them.
So many people are trying to make a living from producing YouTube videos that it makes you wonder how long it'll be before there aren't enough viewers to go round.
There already aren't enough viewers to go around, which is why only a minority end up making a living from it, and the majority either give up, or continue trying while still doing something else to make money.
Exactly the same as the music industry has worked for decades.
The main difference is that it's the Youtube algorithm that is acting as the mediating mechanism, rather than producers, etc.
Most of the YouTube creators I know also lean heavily on patreon, because YouTube is capricious in the way it demonetises videos and other shenanigans.
My dad is really into wine, but not much into food. He’s recently gone pescatarian, and feeding him has become an even more thankless task for my poor mum
I want to get dad interested in pairing wine with food, so he’ll at least show a bit of interest in the food. I was looking up smoked haddock wine pairings and found a recipe on a Tuscan wine website - smoked haddock with a dulse sauce
It’s a red seaweed that’s an ingredient in much traditional Irish cuisine. And apparently it’s a superfood, packed with minerals and protein
I think that it might be a good dietary addition for dad.. Does anyone know if it tastes good?
Anyone seen Russell Crowe trying to do Goering yet?
Any good?
Fantastic. Highly recommended. One sequence which I found really difficult to watch
Why, was he singing?
It was a court scene using original film footage from the holocaust but not the usual photos that we are all familiar with. They haven’t pulled their punches in the selection
I’d,planned to go an watch it but some comments here put me off. I’d wondered if the film was based on the theory a jailer helped him escape the hangman with a cyanide capsule but was told that wasn’t the case and it was just fluff. I’ve read a couple of books on Nuremberg and watched a bbc series on it.
Watch out Europe, Trump is coming for your elections next MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
What's he going to do? Send MAGA activists to canvass voters?
Help Elon Musk’s Twitter and other social media companies pump out AI slop disinformation?
We can regulate those if we choose, but money is a huge problem too. See how Farage's enthiusiasm for crypto went through the roof when Ref UK received £9 million from crypto-man Chakrit Sakunkrit in August 2025, which he did not have to declare for (iirc) 3 months.
For the UK, one place to watch is the upcoming political funding reform bill.
Personally I think as per usual the Govt will be too timid. I would limit donations to maybe £500 per annum for individuals who live in the UK, and exclude all international donations, and all corporate donations, including Trades Unions.
And then include a measure of Govt funding, perhaps based around existing number of MPs.
So long as trade unions (and industrial associations) are banned from donating then corporates should be too. But Labour will never allow that.
Government funding probably needs to be more than just MPs - insurgent parties need funding too. I don’t like Reform but it would be inequitable to fund them based on a handful of MPs.
Farage has always been quite pro-crypto to my knowledge - I suspect that's why a crypto guy has made the donation, rather than the other way round.
Grifter recognises a grift when he sees it. Just like his boy Trump.
Yawn. Come back to me when corporates aren't making vast donations (and offering lucrative speaking engagements) to get exactly what they want from the big 2.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
In my view the magistrate delivered justice.
An absolute discharge
In your view, as you say.
I think the case should never have come to court. The mitigation should have been read and the case dismissed. Not in the public interest. You may think prosecuting bed ridden octogenrians needing carers four times a diary for car insurance offences is okay. I don’t.
Do you not think of the stress and worry this causes people as the process is often the punishment rather than the sentence. Course you don’t. That would require empathy.
Don’t personalise it.
I was discussing what the magistrate did given the situation they found themselves in.
Sorry, you’re right, you’re a decent chap and I shouldn’t personalise, I’m in the wrong there and I do apologise. few things in life make me angry but the SJPs and how justice fucks over people for small transgressions yet people who commit all sorts,of crimes get away with it because plod can’t be arsed
The pensioner still committed an offence, owning a vehicle without insurance and the Justice did entirely the right thing giving her an absolute discharge.
It is for Parliament to change the law so that owning a vehicle without insurance you cannot and will not drive is not an offence, not the CPS, DVLA, police and JPs
The current law is adequate, in fact it is generous; it allows the use of SORNs to avoid insurance. There are good public policy reasons for requiring car insurance and therefore there are good public policy reasons for not permitting indiscriminate and unregulated ownership of uninsured vehicles.
As to the case in hand, probs it should never have gone ahead. But for all we know there are cases with similar facts where actually all the family have been using it as a way of motoring on the cheap at odd times.
So many people are trying to make a living from producing YouTube videos that it makes you wonder how long it'll be before there aren't enough viewers to go round.
There already aren't enough viewers to go around, which is why only a minority end up making a living from it, and the majority either give up, or continue trying while still doing something else to make money.
Exactly the same as the music industry has worked for decades.
The main difference is that it's the Youtube algorithm that is acting as the mediating mechanism, rather than producers, etc.
Most of the YouTube creators I know also lean heavily on patreon, because YouTube is capricious in the way it demonetises videos and other shenanigans.
Try the book industry. A handful of authors make a lot of money. But walk into any large bookshop, unless run by an eccentric genius, and feel your spirits droop as you contemplate the sheer number cascading in front of you, almost none of which will make serious money for the author, mostly unreadable and unread and in bookshop circulation for a matter of days or weeks. A model which, with cheap production, makes money for publishers but not for authors.
My dad is really into wine, but not much into food. He’s recently gone pescatarian, and feeding him has become an even more thankless task for my poor mum
I want to get dad interested in pairing wine with food, so he’ll at least show a bit of interest in the food. I was looking up smoked haddock wine pairings and found a recipe on a Tuscan wine website - smoked haddock with a dulse sauce
It’s a red seaweed that’s an ingredient in much traditional Irish cuisine. And apparently it’s a superfood, packed with minerals and protein
I think that it might be a good dietary addition for dad.. Does anyone know if it tastes good?
No idea, but I love smoked haddock and I love wine, so I'm going to try it
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
Not sure ignoring people who disagree with you is the greatest way to persuade them to change their mind. The whole point of democracy is that different people can have different but valid opinions.
They can do but sometimes people are just wrong. If you keep believing people who lie and don't understand how the world works don't be surprised if you keep making bad decisions.
If only our politicians down the decades had trusted the democratic process instead of being afraid of the people, it's very likely we'd never have left.
Well we trusted the democratic process in 2016, and now we are in the wilderness.
November data pointed to a sharp and accelerated reduction in output levels across the construction sector amid widespread reports of challenging market conditions.
New orders also decreased to the greatest extent since May 2020. Many construction companies commented on weak client confidence, alongside delayed spending decisions linked to uncertainty ahead of the Budget.
At 39.4 in November, down from 44.1 in October, the headline S&P Global UK Construction Purchasing Managers’ Index™ (PMI®) – a seasonally adjusted index tracking changes in total industry activity – was the lowest since May 2020. Lower volumes of construction output have now been recorded for eleven months in a row.
Sub-sector data showed that housing activity (index at 35.4), commercial construction (43.8) and civil engineering (30.0) all experienced the fastest downturns in activity for five-and-a-half years. Survey respondents commented on fragile market confidence, delays with the release of new projects and a general lack of incoming new work.
Total new business decreased at a rapid pace in November. Around 44% of the survey panel reported a fall in new orders, while only 17% signalled an increase. Aside from the pandemic, the resulting seasonally adjusted New Orders Index pointed to the fastest downturn in new work since early-2009. Construction companies commented on sales headwinds due to risk aversion among clients, worries about the UK economic outlook and elevated business uncertainty ahead of the Budget.
Employment numbers across the construction sector decreased for the eleventh consecutive month in November, reflecting a lack of new work to replace completed projects and elevated wage pressures. The latest fall in staffing levels was the steepest since August 2020. Subcontractor usage also decreased, as has been the case in each month since December 2024.
Its revealing how those people who are looking for an economic magic wand by creating some non-existent customs union with the EU are totally silent about the catastrophe the Labour government has caused in the construction sector.
X makes a point about the merits of policy A. Y makes the point that X and X's friends don't make a point about fact/policy B.
Is this form of argument just a little tired? Does it have a purpose beyond some very obscure ad hominem or party political stuff?
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
Not sure ignoring people who disagree with you is the greatest way to persuade them to change their mind. The whole point of democracy is that different people can have different but valid opinions.
Well, at least stop treating people who obsess about "growth" but who publicly supported Brexit as people to be taken seriously.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
Not sure ignoring people who disagree with you is the greatest way to persuade them to change their mind. The whole point of democracy is that different people can have different but valid opinions.
They can do but sometimes people are just wrong. If you keep believing people who lie and don't understand how the world works don't be surprised if you keep making bad decisions.
If only our politicians down the decades had trusted the democratic process instead of being afraid of the people, it's very likely we'd never have left.
Well we trusted the democratic process in 2016, and now we are in the wilderness.
I was born in 1972. The first time my country asked me to vote on the EU was in 2016. We didn’t even get to vote for Lisbon - an embarrassed Gordo signed it away from the cameras.
The truth is the political elites simply didn’t trust the British public to do the right thing.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
Not sure ignoring people who disagree with you is the greatest way to persuade them to change their mind. The whole point of democracy is that different people can have different but valid opinions.
They can do but sometimes people are just wrong. If you keep believing people who lie and don't understand how the world works don't be surprised if you keep making bad decisions.
If only our politicians down the decades had trusted the democratic process instead of being afraid of the people, it's very likely we'd never have left.
Well we trusted the democratic process in 2016, and now we are in the wilderness.
If you only believe in democracy when your side wins, you don't believe in it at all.
I was born in 1972. The first time my country asked me to vote on the EU was in 2016. We didn’t even get to vote for Lisbon - an embarrassed Gordo signed it away from the cameras.
The truth is the political elites simply didn’t trust the British public to do the right thing.
Anyone seen Russell Crowe trying to do Goering yet?
Any good?
Fantastic. Highly recommended. One sequence which I found really difficult to watch
Why, was he singing?
It was a court scene using original film footage from the holocaust but not the usual photos that we are all familiar with. They haven’t pulled their punches in the selection
I’d,planned to go an watch it but some comments here put me off. I’d wondered if the film was based on the theory a jailer helped him escape the hangman with a cyanide capsule but was told that wasn’t the case and it was just fluff. I’ve read a couple of books on Nuremberg and watched a bbc series on it.
It was based on the book written by the US army psychiatrist so it’s his story rather than a documentary. But certainly well done and enjoyable. I’ve never really been into Nazi history as did too much at school so didn’t know that much about Nuremberg
OT - So which pollsters did best at the last GE? Verian, Norstat, MIC and JLP were the only pollsters to get within 5% which for me is an acceptable result.. Verian and Norstat aren't doing GB polling at the moment. Find Out Now whiffed by double figures - which can happen to the best pollsters. Just ask Ann Selzer in Iowa. However, I'd not be putting my shirt on FON being right next time and everyone else being wrong. Opinium and Survation had bad 2024 GE results but do have a decent past record - likewise Ipsos. FON did badly and have no track record to put against it
To me - given the track record of British polling I would be very careful about relying on it too much. As a comparison to determine trends it is fine. As a 'snap-shot' of what percentages a given party hass on a certain date it is pretty much useless in the UK. The record of US polling is MUCH better in what should be a much tougher playground. You have to also look at local by election results. They are much harder to interpret but unless they are endorsing a trend shown in polls I am massively sceptical
What can we say? Lab are certainly in big trouble (Sunak style trouble). Ref are certainly doing very well - if not quite as well as in May. They have a chance of a majority but it is many miles from being a probability let alone a certainty. The Cons are doing very poorly - well down on their GE position. The Lib Dems are probably ahead of their GE position and the Greens certainly are. That's about it.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
Not sure ignoring people who disagree with you is the greatest way to persuade them to change their mind. The whole point of democracy is that different people can have different but valid opinions.
They can do but sometimes people are just wrong. If you keep believing people who lie and don't understand how the world works don't be surprised if you keep making bad decisions.
If only our politicians down the decades had trusted the democratic process instead of being afraid of the people, it's very likely we'd never have left.
Well we trusted the democratic process in 2016, and now we are in the wilderness.
The route to the sunlit uplands passes through the wilderness.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
Not sure ignoring people who disagree with you is the greatest way to persuade them to change their mind. The whole point of democracy is that different people can have different but valid opinions.
They can do but sometimes people are just wrong. If you keep believing people who lie and don't understand how the world works don't be surprised if you keep making bad decisions.
If only our politicians down the decades had trusted the democratic process instead of being afraid of the people, it's very likely we'd never have left.
Well we trusted the democratic process in 2016, and now we are in the wilderness.
I was born in 1972. The first time my country asked me to vote on the EU was in 2016. We didn’t even get to vote for Lisbon - an embarrassed Gordo signed it away from the cameras.
The truth is the political elites simply didn’t trust the British public to do the right thing.
Apart from at every general election where the public could stand and vote for parties supporting our exit from the EU and chose not to, you mean. I was born in 1975 and I've never been asked to vote on NATO, or the royal family, or what side of the road to drive on, or naming one of our aircraft carriers Boaty McBoatface, or whether we should move the capital to Droitwich. I guess the political elites simply don't trust the British public to do the right thing.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
Not sure ignoring people who disagree with you is the greatest way to persuade them to change their mind. The whole point of democracy is that different people can have different but valid opinions.
They can do but sometimes people are just wrong. If you keep believing people who lie and don't understand how the world works don't be surprised if you keep making bad decisions.
If only our politicians down the decades had trusted the democratic process instead of being afraid of the people, it's very likely we'd never have left.
Well we trusted the democratic process in 2016, and now we are in the wilderness.
I was born in 1972. The first time my country asked me to vote on the EU was in 2016. We didn’t even get to vote for Lisbon - an embarrassed Gordo signed it away from the cameras.
The truth is the political elites simply didn’t trust the British public to do the right thing.
Apart from at every general election where the public could stand and vote for parties supporting our exit from the EU and chose not to, you mean. I was born in 1975 and I've never been asked to vote on NATO, or the royal family, or what side of the road to drive on, or naming one of our aircraft carriers Boaty McBoatface, or whether we should move the capital to Droitwich. I guess the political elites simply don't trust the British public to do the right thing.
We can all sleep easy at night knowing this criminal has been punished.
Meanwhile in high streets up and down the country people rob and pilfer stores, or plague high streets, with no come back at all
Trouble is, and you know this, if this regulation is shut down millions will abuse it and [edit] risk ending up committing motorised mayhem without any insurance cover. The first to [edit] kill people with his Grandad's car conveniently previously just sitting on the drive unused, the DM etc will be demanding, erm, this very regulation back.
So why didn’t the magistrate read the mitigation and send it back to DVLA.
The problem is the SJP.
The regulation isn’t the problem. It’s the use of SJPs with magistrates not taking into account mitigation
It’s the loss of discretion - giving people the power to say “the rules say this, but for this reason of sanity & decency we are making an exception.”
My dad is really into wine, but not much into food. He’s recently gone pescatarian, and feeding him has become an even more thankless task for my poor mum
I want to get dad interested in pairing wine with food, so he’ll at least show a bit of interest in the food. I was looking up smoked haddock wine pairings and found a recipe on a Tuscan wine website - smoked haddock with a dulse sauce
It’s a red seaweed that’s an ingredient in much traditional Irish cuisine. And apparently it’s a superfood, packed with minerals and protein
I think that it might be a good dietary addition for dad.. Does anyone know if it tastes good?
No idea, but I love smoked haddock and I love wine, so I'm going to try it
Interesting - not tried it but it sounds rather different from carragheen/laverbread/nori which behave like spinach and which are familiar to me from Welsh and Japanese meals.
Apparently chewy, fries to end up a bit like bacon.
But one or two warnings about the high iodine content in particular and eating it too often or perhaps not at all if the consumer has kidney problems and so forth.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
Not sure ignoring people who disagree with you is the greatest way to persuade them to change their mind. The whole point of democracy is that different people can have different but valid opinions.
They can do but sometimes people are just wrong. If you keep believing people who lie and don't understand how the world works don't be surprised if you keep making bad decisions.
If only our politicians down the decades had trusted the democratic process instead of being afraid of the people, it's very likely we'd never have left.
Well we trusted the democratic process in 2016, and now we are in the wilderness.
I was born in 1972. The first time my country asked me to vote on the EU was in 2016. We didn’t even get to vote for Lisbon - an embarrassed Gordo signed it away from the cameras.
The truth is the political elites simply didn’t trust the British public to do the right thing.
The irony is that the British public now think they themselves did the wrong thing by voting for Brexit. It's complicated.
We can all sleep easy at night knowing this criminal has been punished.
Meanwhile in high streets up and down the country people rob and pilfer stores, or plague high streets, with no come back at all
Trouble is, and you know this, if this regulation is shut down millions will abuse it and [edit] risk ending up committing motorised mayhem without any insurance cover. The first to [edit] kill people with his Grandad's car conveniently previously just sitting on the drive unused, the DM etc will be demanding, erm, this very regulation back.
So why didn’t the magistrate read the mitigation and send it back to DVLA.
The problem is the SJP.
The regulation isn’t the problem. It’s the use of SJPs with magistrates not taking into account mitigation
Because if he had the DVLA would have written to the woman, wasted her time, caused her stress and then prosecuted her again most likely.
Instead he gave her an absolute discharge - so a technical criminal record but no penalty
So a bed ridden woman gets a criminal record. Justice is served. Fantastic. Fuck the silly old woman. Can’t do the time don’t do,the crime, eh !
What a crock. I don’t know how anyone can defend this.
The DVLA could have simply dropped the prosecution, mitigation is never read. SJP cases are an utter disgrace.
The conviction is immediately spent
The DVLA shouldn’t have prosecuted, but in the circumstances the magistrate made the best available decision
The correct decision would have been six months hard labour for the DVLA prosecuting lawyer. And the magistrate giving the little old lady a lift home.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
Not sure ignoring people who disagree with you is the greatest way to persuade them to change their mind. The whole point of democracy is that different people can have different but valid opinions.
They can do but sometimes people are just wrong. If you keep believing people who lie and don't understand how the world works don't be surprised if you keep making bad decisions.
If only our politicians down the decades had trusted the democratic process instead of being afraid of the people, it's very likely we'd never have left.
Well we trusted the democratic process in 2016, and now we are in the wilderness.
If you only believe in democracy when your side wins, you don't believe in it at all.
So you agree that the public should be allowed to change its mind?
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
Not sure ignoring people who disagree with you is the greatest way to persuade them to change their mind. The whole point of democracy is that different people can have different but valid opinions.
They can do but sometimes people are just wrong. If you keep believing people who lie and don't understand how the world works don't be surprised if you keep making bad decisions.
If only our politicians down the decades had trusted the democratic process instead of being afraid of the people, it's very likely we'd never have left.
Well we trusted the democratic process in 2016, and now we are in the wilderness.
I was born in 1972. The first time my country asked me to vote on the EU was in 2016. We didn’t even get to vote for Lisbon - an embarrassed Gordo signed it away from the cameras.
The truth is the political elites simply didn’t trust the British public to do the right thing.
The irony is that the British public now think they themselves did the wrong thing by voting for Brexit. It's complicated.
But they can't vote on it now, because that would be undemocratic, or something.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
Not sure ignoring people who disagree with you is the greatest way to persuade them to change their mind. The whole point of democracy is that different people can have different but valid opinions.
They can do but sometimes people are just wrong. If you keep believing people who lie and don't understand how the world works don't be surprised if you keep making bad decisions.
If only our politicians down the decades had trusted the democratic process instead of being afraid of the people, it's very likely we'd never have left.
Well we trusted the democratic process in 2016, and now we are in the wilderness.
I was born in 1972. The first time my country asked me to vote on the EU was in 2016. We didn’t even get to vote for Lisbon - an embarrassed Gordo signed it away from the cameras.
The truth is the political elites simply didn’t trust the British public to do the right thing.
Apart from at every general election where the public could stand and vote for parties supporting our exit from the EU and chose not to, you mean. I was born in 1975 and I've never been asked to vote on NATO, or the royal family, or what side of the road to drive on, or naming one of our aircraft carriers Boaty McBoatface, or whether we should move the capital to Droitwich. I guess the political elites simply don't trust the British public to do the right thing.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
Not sure ignoring people who disagree with you is the greatest way to persuade them to change their mind. The whole point of democracy is that different people can have different but valid opinions.
They can do but sometimes people are just wrong. If you keep believing people who lie and don't understand how the world works don't be surprised if you keep making bad decisions.
If only our politicians down the decades had trusted the democratic process instead of being afraid of the people, it's very likely we'd never have left.
Well we trusted the democratic process in 2016, and now we are in the wilderness.
The route to the sunlit uplands passes through the wilderness.
Yes I have read the Book according to Daniel (Hannan).
Comments
Actually seen two very good films recently, Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives out Mystery and surprisingly Running Man which was actually better than the 1980s Arnie original
The DVLA shouldn’t have prosecuted, but in the circumstances the magistrate made the best available decision
I was discussing what the magistrate did given the situation they found themselves in.
The best would have been for the DVLA to show judgement and common sense. But perhaps that’s asking too much…
On China he is right to do what he is doing, some in the CPC leadership are apparently not as comfortable as Xi is with being little bothered by Putin's actions
Government funding probably needs to be more than just MPs - insurgent parties need funding too. I don’t like Reform but it would be inequitable to fund them based on a handful of MPs.
The new one was so shit I fell asleep, and then went to bed early.
It is for Parliament to change the law so that owning a vehicle without insurance you cannot and will not drive is not an offence, not the CPS, DVLA, police and JPs
Oh well. I guess there are the betting tips.
…
The money is merely resting in the account of the union before it gets passed on to the party.
Otherwise I would claim that money is merely resting in the account of a company before it gets passed on
These things need to be equitable
We live in a society where small transgressions are smashed down hard by our law and order system yet serial offenders and those that stick two fingers up at the system just get away with it.
Not sure about the need for the ‘sweet’ comment either n🤷♂️
I rarely watch films these days apart from classics that I know are great - films I can watch over and over and the fact of knowing the plot isn’t ruined because of the quality of story, acting etc.
So Hollywood will likely churn out pull for audiences with short attention spans and inability to delve deep (someone here posted the other day about the problem English Lit courses are having with students unwilling/unable to get into classic literature due to the lack of simplicity in the writing) and there will remain a market for quality depth.
Regarding Odyssey, I do rate Nolan's previous movies, though perhaps Tenet was his weakest effort in that it openly asked us to "Don't try to understand it, just feel it" regarding negative entropy (ie. objects experiencing time in reverse)!
* Obviously only Leavers
I think it's the same with PC games. There are loads of amazing games from the nineties that have far better playability than modern equivalents, that are obsessed by graphics but are far less fun to play.
I think Chris Sawyer had it right.
Any good?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7vmlmm9343o
That 'huge talent' in action:
November data pointed to a sharp and accelerated reduction in output levels across the construction sector amid widespread reports of challenging market conditions.
New orders also decreased to the greatest extent since May 2020. Many construction companies commented on weak client confidence, alongside delayed spending decisions linked to uncertainty ahead of the Budget.
At 39.4 in November, down from 44.1 in October, the headline S&P Global UK Construction Purchasing Managers’ Index™ (PMI®) – a seasonally adjusted index tracking changes in total industry activity – was the lowest since May 2020. Lower volumes of construction output have now been recorded for eleven months in a row.
Sub-sector data showed that housing activity (index at 35.4), commercial construction (43.8) and civil engineering (30.0) all experienced the fastest downturns in activity for five-and-a-half years. Survey respondents commented on fragile market confidence, delays with the release of new projects and a general lack of incoming new work.
Total new business decreased at a rapid pace in November. Around 44% of the survey panel reported a fall in new orders, while only 17% signalled an increase. Aside from the pandemic, the resulting seasonally adjusted New Orders Index pointed to the fastest downturn in new work since early-2009. Construction companies commented on sales headwinds due to risk aversion among clients, worries about the UK economic outlook and elevated business uncertainty ahead of the Budget.
Employment numbers across the construction sector decreased for the eleventh consecutive month in November, reflecting a lack of new work to replace completed projects and elevated wage pressures. The latest fall in staffing levels was the steepest since August 2020. Subcontractor usage also decreased, as has been the case in each month since December 2024.
https://www.pmi.spglobal.com/Public/Home/PressRelease/52b275735e86497fa939b995db8961da
You are also reading too many tabloids, serial offenders who repeatedly offend get sent to jail if caught, even suspended sentences and community orders and fines are normally for first time offenders
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/uk-russia-ukraine-germany-rishi-sunak-war-national-service-b2878136.html
As a country we can't afford to keep making stupid decisions. The world is an unforgiving place for people who won't learn from their mistakes and correct them.
Exactly the same as the music industry has worked for decades.
The main difference is that it's the Youtube algorithm that is acting as the mediating mechanism, rather than producers, etc.
Most of the YouTube creators I know also lean heavily on patreon, because YouTube is capricious in the way it demonetises videos and other shenanigans.
My dad is really into wine, but not much into food. He’s recently gone pescatarian, and feeding him has become an even more thankless task for my poor mum
I want to get dad interested in pairing wine with food, so he’ll at least show a bit of interest in the food. I was looking up smoked haddock wine pairings and found a recipe on a Tuscan wine website - smoked haddock with a dulse sauce
It’s a red seaweed that’s an ingredient in much traditional Irish cuisine. And apparently it’s a superfood, packed with minerals and protein
I think that it might be a good dietary addition for dad.. Does anyone know if it tastes good?
He's not even wearing a Santa hat, ffs.
As to the case in hand, probs it should never have gone ahead. But for all we know there are cases with similar facts where actually all the family have been using it as a way of motoring on the cheap at odd times.
Is this form of argument just a little tired? Does it have a purpose beyond some very obscure ad hominem or party political stuff?
The truth is the political elites simply didn’t trust the British public to do the right thing.
https://x.com/johnrentoul/status/1997340758957871495?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
To me - given the track record of British polling I would be very careful about relying on it too much. As a comparison to determine trends it is fine. As a 'snap-shot' of what percentages a given party hass on a certain date it is pretty much useless in the UK. The record of US polling is MUCH better in what should be a much tougher playground. You have to also look at local by election results. They are much harder to interpret but unless they are endorsing a trend shown in polls I am massively sceptical
What can we say? Lab are certainly in big trouble (Sunak style trouble). Ref are certainly doing very well - if not quite as well as in May. They have a chance of a majority but it is many miles from being a probability let alone a certainty. The Cons are doing very poorly - well down on their GE position. The Lib Dems are probably ahead of their GE position and the Greens certainly are. That's about it.
I was born in 1975 and I've never been asked to vote on NATO, or the royal family, or what side of the road to drive on, or naming one of our aircraft carriers Boaty McBoatface, or whether we should move the capital to Droitwich. I guess the political elites simply don't trust the British public to do the right thing.
It’s 2025 and we’re still living as subjects, not citizens.
It’s time for a referendum on the monarchy.
https://x.com/zarahsultana/status/1997642169906020737
Apparently chewy, fries to end up a bit like bacon.
But one or two warnings about the high iodine content in particular and eating it too often or perhaps not at all if the consumer has kidney problems and so forth.