Had the UK been saying 'of course well settle up, can we please negotiate other issues simultaneously?', I'd be on board with you.
I thought the Government was saying that?
I believe the conversation went:
Let's get the exit sorted and then get into trade?
Great, let's see what you're due us.
Due? You don't pay your golf membership after you stop playing!
You do if you quit a month after signing up to a year's monthly direct debit. You're due £60b.
Whistle.
£60b
Get a grip, we don't owe you anything.
£60b
We'll give you something. Let's talk about trade.
Kinda hard to trust you now. £60b
£20b?
£60b
£40b?
£60b
£57b?
Ok. This bodes well.
It's all under the table nowadays. There's no official confirmation for anything, but it's been reported from multiple sources.
In any case it seems the tories seem to start to realise just how incompatible a hard brexit is with the good friday agreements. The UK signed both those treaties in good faith, and needs to keep in mind how one interacts with the other when trying to amend either.
Out of the three sticking points the EU insisted on settling before moving on to trade (citizen rights, financial settlement and Ireland) the UK seemingly focused too much on #1 and #2 thinking #3 was a done deal, but the Republic has proven to be a tougher negotiator than expected.
May has insisted that the actual figure is kept quiet, so she knows people won't be happy with it. How she thinks it'll stay secret for long is beyond me.
Seems they've agreed on a formula to work on the balance, but the results vary a bit depending on who works them out. So it's been totally overcomplicated just to avoid facing the public, again.
It's all a waste of time, the settlement figure is less than the expected economic damage (somewhere from £78-168bn per year) so it's largely irrelevant beyond politics and point scoring.
Naturally, most brexiteers have come out saying that we're paying too much and we've been had over by the EU.
If this divorce bill works out cheaper than what our continued membership over the same period would have been, and keeps relations good and doesn’t result in us still remaining under the control of the EU after ‘leaving’ then I’ll accept it.
I wish people would stop calling it a divorce bill. It's a settlement of liabilities and the figure owed will be identical regardless of any future dealings.
It's likely to be about the same as what we'd have paid as a member.
Herzlos wrote: I wish people would stop calling it a divorce bill. It's a settlement of liabilities and the figure owed will be identical regardless of any future dealings.
It's likely to be about the same as what we'd have paid as a member.
Without getting anything back from the EU
Lovely tasty freedom.
So if that's paid over 10 years, does the NHS get it's bus money after that? Just trying to work out when my child stops getting pooped on from a great height, and I'm trying to work out when we can as a country use this 350 million for something good.
Let's get the exit sorted and then get into trade?
Great, let's see what you're due us.
Due? You don't pay your golf membership after you stop playing!
You do if you quit a month after signing up to a year's monthly direct debit. You're due £60b.
Whistle.
£60b
Get a grip, we don't owe you anything.
£60b
We'll give you something. Let's talk about trade.
Kinda hard to trust you now. £60b
£20b?
£60b
£40b?
£60b
£57b?
Ok. This bodes well.
Sadly, this is far from being remotely accurate. The discussion went:-
EU:- Before we move onto trade, let's talk about how much you owe from prior commitments.
Britain:- Okay. How much is it?
EU:- Well, we don't have a precise figure. Here's a four page list of general headings denoting things we think you've agreed to pay for. Just sign here....
Britain:- There's no breakdown of costs or total figure? Just general headings?
EU:- Yeah, we just want you to agree to pay according to these headings on principle first before we go away and work out how much it will be.
Britain:- Sorry, that really won't do. Can I get a detailed breakdown of costs on a point by point basis?
EU:- No, no, we can't do that. You just need to sign in general terms to agree to pay the bill on these lines, and then we'll tell you how much it is and more precisely what for. Then we can move on to trade.
Britain:- I'm happy to meet our commitments, but I want a detailed breakdown of what I'm paying for before agreeing to any specifics. Can we move onto trade yet?
EU:- I'm afraid we can't do trade until you sign at the bottom here.
And so on ad infinitum. Hence the game of chicken. The Europeans want to squeeze out as much as they can whilst they can, and the British want to pay as little as possible and whizz onto trade. The result from the EU is absolute vagueness and a refusal to put down a figure on paper until the 'general principles' have been agreed upon (without discussing what makes them up), and the Brits keep demanding specifics they can haggle over. So the EU refuses to provide them and accuses Britain of being obstinate and holding everything up, and Britain accuses the EU of stonewalling.
Both are true, and both have a grain of reason in them. As said before, this negotiation has been a sterling example on both sides as to how not to actually do one, and how to cause ill will in the opposite side.
Let's get the exit sorted and then get into trade?
Great, let's see what you're due us.
Due? You don't pay your golf membership after you stop playing!
You do if you quit a month after signing up to a year's monthly direct debit. You're due £60b.
Whistle.
£60b
Get a grip, we don't owe you anything.
£60b
We'll give you something. Let's talk about trade.
Kinda hard to trust you now. £60b
£20b?
£60b
£40b?
£60b
£57b?
Ok. This bodes well.
Sadly, this is far from being remotely accurate. The discussion went:-
EU:- Before we move onto trade, let's talk about how much you owe from prior commitments.
Britain:- Okay. How much is it?
EU:- Well, we don't have a precise figure. Here's a four page list of general headings denoting things we think you've agreed to pay for. Just sign here....
Britain:- There's no breakdown of costs or total figure? Just general headings?
EU:- Yeah, we just want you to agree to pay according to these headings on principle first before we go away and work out how much it will be.
Britain:- Sorry, that really won't do. Can I get a detailed breakdown of costs on a point by point basis?
EU: You, as a full member, have access to the full numbers. Move your lazy arses and do your homework.
EU: Ok, how much do you think you owe?
Britain: Dunno. Nothing?
Sure the EU should have put a number on it, based on the assumed list of items, but the UK could have had this settled 6+ months ago and be well into the trade stuff.
In the end we settled for more or less what they asked for at the start, so was all the gakking around worth it?
jouso wrote:
EU: You, as a full member, have access to the full numbers. Move your lazy arses and do your homework.
That's more like it.
Herzlos wrote:You're also missing
Britain: "Spin on it"
and:
EU: Ok, how much do you think you owe?
Britain: Dunno. Nothing?
And yet, none of these exchanges actually took place. Instead we've simply had Britain saying they wouldn't pay an overinflated bill, and the EU saying that they're not touching trade talks until the bottom line is signed. And since then, Britain has gradually edged towards agreeing to pay specific figures without any real costing or justification, one step at a time, because they're losing the game of chicken.
Whatever blame can be thrown either way, a "disorderly hard Brexit" will cause the UK economy to fall off a cliff and bring about up to 9% loss of GDP, which would be catastrophic coming on top of our lost 10 years since the Lehman Shock.
The EU also doesn't want a "disorderly hard brexit" though for them it would be less of a disaster because their involvement with the UK is a smaller part of their overall economy.
Therefore this job has got to get done so everyone can move on to the next stage of talks.
We also need the right solution to the Irish Border Question.
We’re paying tens of billions of pounds to leave the world’s largest free trade area, whilst surrendering all of our ability to define its rights & regulations.
All so that we can hopefully then start negotiating an inferior arrangement with the world’s largest free trade area.
And we're the ones who have them over a barrel right ?
We've wasted weeks of valuable negotiation time on an argument we always knew we were going to lose.
The EU already knows our negotiating positions.
The EU has been negotiating trade deals on behalf of the UK for 44 years.
The equivalent of a doctor knowing your medical records.
and we've got Liam Fox.
Meanwhile some MP's have today been saying we need to have a second vote in Parliament about the Government publishing the Brexit impact studies because they didn't like the result of the first one and they won't respect the will of sovereign Parliament demanding publication.
That would be the vote that Govt. didn't contest the first time.
It's a bit like watching your footie team with their long serving manager getting relegated.
... well, I'd imagine so, I'm a Liverpool fan so been a long time since that was an issue.
This whole thing has strengthened my convictions. The EU’s attitude during this entire thing has been atrocious. Conjuring numbers out of nowhere, arguing in bad faith, hostile leaks, and no notion of actually guaranteeing anything. It wasn’t so much a bill as a ransom demand, which the B.G seems to have sadly caved in on. Whilst I do hope it means we can move on with the talks, my biggest fear is that having now gotten their money, they’ll now completely fob us off on all other issues. I wouldn’t put it past them.
I'm all for the information being open - it affects all of us.
The EU will continue negotiation from their standard position; holding all the cards and knowing it. They've given us a few easy options, so I hope we take one.
Future War Cultist wrote: Whilst I do hope it means we can move on with the talks, my biggest fear is that having now gotten their money, they’ll now completely fob us off on all other issues. I wouldn’t put it past them.
The bill and future negotiations are not related. We should not be expecting to be treated any differently because we finally agreed to pay for things we'd already signed up to pay for.
We've still got Ireland to sort before we can move on, anyway. Given that we're currently insisting we do not want to be in the customs union (a position that legally obliges us to have a border), whilst also insisting that Ireland are going to force a border (when they actually want us to stay in the customs union: the only possible way of avoiding one) moving on probably isn't happening in a hurry.
Hard Brexiteers have commandeered the Maybot and the referendum result to force through the most extreme possible version of leaving the EU short of going to war.
If you start your negotiations by locking out all possibility of a reasonable compromise, and set a legally binding deadline to finish whatever the results, it is not going to go well.
Again and again, this is not what the people or parliament voted for. The government does not have the authority or mandate to do what they are trying to do.
Future War Cultist wrote: This whole thing has strengthened my convictions. The EU’s attitude during this entire thing has been atrocious. Conjuring numbers out of nowhere, arguing in bad faith, hostile leaks, and no notion of actually guaranteeing anything. It wasn’t so much a bill as a ransom demand, which the B.G seems to have sadly caved in on. Whilst I do hope it means we can move on with the talks, my biggest fear is that having now gotten their money, they’ll now completely fob us off on all other issues. I wouldn’t put it past them.
Really?
So far as I can see it's been
UK: Oi, Speccy Foureyes EU! Give us all your sweets!
EU: No, and also, 'or what?'
UK: WAAAAAAAH!!!! Y U BULLY I????
We're the ones leaving. We're the ones with the poor hand. You....you honestly expected us not to get pushed around? Have you seen how the world actually works?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And at what point are people going to be honest and admit that a second referendum is in the national interest?
You or I as voters may not be primed to change our mind. But given the frankly outrageous lies told by BoJo, Gove et al, there's a decent number of people hoodwinked. And seeing the destruction about to be wrought upon our economy, do we really want to inflict that on ourselves?
Seriously. Look at the areas that voted Leave, that are now requesting super-special-treatment from the Government to make up for the loss of EU subsidy and investment. There's biting the hand that feeds you, and there's taking the absolute Michael. You voted for financial strife? Enjoy your sovereignty and ride it out yourself. Don't see why my local area (only one in Kent to vote Remain) should pay for you.
Oh? What's that nasty, tiny minded little bigot that blames everyone else for their failings*? You don't like your own logic being used against you? Think it's unfair? Well, tough. You pooped your bed, time to lie in it. At least I can still afford clean sheet.
*Categorically not addressed to any poster on Dakka.
*Categorically not addressed to any poster on Dakka.
Nice cop out. Still violates Rule #1 IMO.
Unless you think its also OK for people here to start throwing around terms like "Traitor" whilst insisting its "Categorically not addressed to any poster on Dakka"?
*Categorically not addressed to any poster on Dakka.
Nice cop out. Still violates Rule #1 IMO.
Unless you think its also OK for people here to start throwing around terms like "Traitor" whilst insisting its "Categorically not addressed to any poster on Dakka"?
Whatevs.
Care to address my point that a second referendum is now a must, given 'Project Fear' was clearly 'Project No Really We've Looked Into This And This Is What Is Going To Happen'?
Gove, BoJo, Farage et al. Lied, lied and lied again to get their way. Said lies are now exposed. Time to see if Britain still wants to swallow what they've put in the water.
Is a second referendum, free of the racist, bigoted lies and misdirection of Farage and co now warranted? Now we can see the stark reality that leaving the EU is going to do serious damage? Now we can see that our 'top negotiation team' are nothing but a bunch of self interested clowns who's sole idea is 'tax haven'?
Those areas that voted Leave, but now demand Government cash to make up for the EU money they're about to lose - should we be telling them 'no, you created this mess, enjoy the brunt of it'?
I don't think a second referendum is practical in the time we have left. We've got ourselves into an insoluble position, or rather I should say the Conservatives have got us into this position.
That said, we don't actually have to quit on March 29th 2019 at midnight. We can give ourselves and the EU more time to think everything through and work it out properly. This would allow for a second referendum, after a deal was proposed, and full scrutiny by parliament. I would suggest the referendum should be phrased a lot more carefully.
Why is it that the government is so keen to cement the leaving date and time into law? What is the Maybot's hidden agenda?
To have a hidden agenda, you need to be capable of independent thought.
First we need to find out just who it is pulling her strings.
I mean, seriously. This is just getting worse by the day, if not by the hour. Leavers moan that the EU aren't playing fair - welcome to world politics. World politics is why Europe is a good thing to be a member of, because with diverse economies negotiating as one, you tend to get a better deal.
We're seriously about to light the 'Red White And Blue' touch paper on our economy for some ridiculous notion of 'sovereignty' - something those demanding it typically seem incapable of defining or explaining.
I think the fixed date is another attempt to placate the 20ish frothing anti-EU Tory MP's who are no doubt accusing her of stalling.
But I agree with Mad Doc - it's not her making these decisions or she wouldn't be flopping about so much. Figuring out who is telling her what to do would be a good step in figuring out what's going to happen.
We crapped out an election in, what, 6 weeks? I'm sure we could do the same with a referendum since we've got 16 months left
I think we need one - all but the most hardcore leavers (despite what Farage is saying) must be starting to have concerns.
This polling is a month old, but I think the broad outline is unlikely to have changed significantly.
YouGov wrote:Only a minority of Leave voters believe that Brexit will have any negative impact
In October 2016, YouGov asked both Remain and Leave voters what impact they thought Brexit would have on a variety of things – such as the economy, food prices, their personal finances, etc. The research revealed that, in contrast to Remainers, only a small minority of Leave voters believed that Brexit would have a negative impact on any issue.
Now, one year on, YouGov finds that the proportion of Leave voters with negative expectations of Brexit is almost completely unchanged. On 11* of the potential areas of impact we asked about, negative opinion among Leave voters has shifted so little that in all but one instance any changes are all within the margin of error.
The only issue that has seen an increase in negative sentiment among Leavers is the likelihood of the price of their weekly shopping going up, which has risen from 25% to 30% over the past year. This is still, however, far behind the 52% who think the cost of their shopping will remain much the same.
* for two additional measures – how immigration levels will change and whether Scotland will remain in the UK – the difference between what constitutes a good or bad outcome is less clear cut, and so we have not discussed these results in detail or included them in the chart. Leave voters have become less likely to think Scotland will leave, while their views on immigration levels remain the same.
By contrast, Remainers are now slightly more likely than a year ago to think that the impacts of Brexit will be negative. But it is also true that over the past 12 months the biggest changes in opinion across all expectations – positive, negative or that Brexit will make no difference – have occurred among Remain voters.
Fewer of them now believe that Scotland is more likely to leave the UK as a result of Brexit (53%, compared to 70% in 2016. They are also now more likely to think that there will be less immigration to the UK (35%, from 23%), that British companies will do worse outside the EU (73%, from 63%), and believe that British society will get worse (59%, from 50%).
But the first 4 have already happened thanks to the vote. They are still refusing to accept the damage. I would accept (although still disagree) I’d leave voters were saying they accepted the damage but felt it was worth it, but in general they deny it.
Future War Cultist wrote: If this divorce bill works out cheaper than what our continued membership over the same period would have been, and keeps relations good and doesn’t result in us still remaining under the control of the EU after ‘leaving’ then I’ll accept it.
There are reports that the total bill will come to around £90bn. The first £50bn will be immediate liabilities and then there are long term liabilities (such as pensions etc).
The net cost to the UK at the moment after rebates etc is about £8.5bn but excludes EU money given direct to businesses, universities and so on. That's about another £1bn
So to pay off the £90bn at constant currency that's about 12 years.
However we've also lost that £90bn from being able to spend it so there is potential gains from that money we have lost. That is usually assumed to be about 2.5% per year so assuming this only applies to the first £50bn being conservative that's another £22bn in lost value.
However this doesn't cover the cost of soft issues as well. For example the reduction in the value of the £ means our interest payments are now about £15bn per annum higher. So working on the principle that over the next 10 years we work this £0 (and ignoring interest accrued on the interest) then that amounts to another £83bn over the 15 years (assuming a reduction of £1bn per year).
There are also things that like the loss of the Medical Authority and Banking Authority. Assuming a 1000 jobs each at a median wage of £40000 (probably conservative) that's £24 million pa so about £0.3bn tax over 15 years. There are also the visits which I understand is on the order of 100,000 per year. Assuming a £200 per night (central London rates) for three nights that's about £0.2bn over 15 years.
I'm going to ignore trade as there will be costs there both in managing it and any potential move across to the EU (e.g. banks) but that is all uncertain now. So over 15 years that is about £170bn cost and it's likely an underestimate as I'm ignoring things like setting up new agencies to replace those lost (e.g. Euratom) and assuming things will be back to normal after 15 years (unlikely in my view).
So in effect it will cost us about 23 years to pay off what would have been a 15 year cost.
Hence the net cost is about 8 years (again probably an underestimate), so we are paying about 1.5times conservatively more than we would have done.
Herzlos wrote: Yeah there's a lot of denial going on there.
That said, it'd take less than 4% of leavers to change their minds to change the result. Or a modest increase in non-voters turning up to vote remain. Like the extra year or 2's worth of remain majority youth. Likely a combination of the above.
In some sense it is irrelevant to do polls on how people's attitudes have changed.
The closer Brexit comes, the more awesome it will be, and even stalwart Remainers will find it hard to deny the reality of the new sunlit uplands of boundless freedom and economic success that we will come to.
Alternatively the more gak that spins off the fan, the more Leavers will come to realise the danger they are leading the UK into.
Either way, a second referendum is pointless as long as the cabal of hardline Brexiteers supported by the DUP with a billion pound bribe feeds the Maybot the agenda they want and she thinks will hold the Tory Party together.
However, part of me agrees with the New Statesman. The Left should aim for a hard Brexit because the resulting economic chaos will plunge the UK into a bitter furnace of destruction that offers the potential for renewal on a large scale renewal of our social and political contracts.
In other words, let everything burn, make the Conservative Party own the burning, use this to crush their discredited system of the world, and establish a better one. It will take a generation to get any good results, but that's going to happen anyway.
Kilkrazy wrote: ...However, part of me agrees with the New Statesman. The Left should aim for a hard Brexit because the resulting economic chaos will plunge the UK into a bitter furnace of destruction that offers the potential for renewal on a large scale renewal of our social and political contracts.
In other words, let everything burn, make the Conservative Party own the burning, use this to crush their discredited system of the world, and establish a better one. It will take a generation to get any good results, but that's going to happen anyway.
However much I would like to see the right wing split and fracture, and see the their ideology given a good hard reality check, I would absolutely hate for the rest of the country to have to suffer as a result of their hubris.
I don't think those that got us into this mess will be held to account; they are all wealthy enough to weather it or move away. They aren't going to go jobless, homeless or hungry.
I can see this killing the tory party for a term or 2 until labour gets blamed for not doing enough with what money is left.
Personally Im hoping it'll be bad enough that someone will face reality and pull the plug before the real damage starts, or that we rejoin (either as a whole or as a split kinhdom). My biggest concern is a middle of line decline that goes ahead and causes a slow decline but isn't severe enough for there to be an appetite to rejoin the eu cap in hand.
Herzlos wrote: I don't think those that got us into this mess will be held to account; they are all wealthy enough to weather it or move away. They aren't going to go jobless, homeless or hungry.
I can see this killing the tory party for a term or 2 until labour gets blamed for not doing enough with what money is left.
Personally Im hoping it'll be bad enough that someone will face reality and pull the plug before the real damage starts, or that we rejoin (either as a whole or as a split kinhdom). My biggest concern is a middle of line decline that goes ahead and causes a slow decline but isn't severe enough for there to be an appetite to rejoin the eu cap in hand.
There does appear to be growing demand for a second referendum now that more information is being presented and the realities and lies have been exposed. I watched a few clips from channel 4 about Leave voters reactions to the 50bn, and a good third said they'd change their vote now if they could.
Could be part of May's "strategy" I suppose. Allow the hard core brexiteers to try and get their demands met, expose what a terrible deal that would be for the UK, and then put the final shambles to a second referendum knowing it'll get rejected, and then being able to cancel Brexit altogether.
I should get some sort of award for creative writing for coming up with that scenario. Still, you never know.
Deadnight wrote: and I'd prefer a European army to the damned warmongering NATO regime)
What makes you think the EU won't be just as warmongering?
Big military industrial complexes once established need to find ways to justify their continued existence. And the EU like most Empires is expansionist. It is inevitable that the EU will find itself in conflict with other nations.
It's just less bloody to sell warmongering equipment to third parties and let them blow each other apart than to start wars yourself. That's at least what german arms manufacturers are doing.
nfe wrote:We need someone with a law background to chime in here, but I'm going to wager that there are probably differences just as substantial between Scots and English law as between English and some other European systems
I don't have a law background but the big fundamental difference is common law in the US/UK (law derived from judicial decisions/precedent) vs. civil law in Europe (core principles are codified into a referable system which serves as the primary source of law).
Future War Cultist wrote:If this divorce bill works out cheaper than what our continued membership over the same period would have been, and keeps relations good and doesn’t result in us still remaining under the control of the EU after ‘leaving’ then I’ll accept it.
You are kinda ignoring all the extra cost related to not trading under the same union. Germany pays more into the EU than it gets out directly but also gets massive "invisible" benefits from being able to easily hire people from all over the EU, trade inside the EU without having to go through additional regulations in each country, and so on. That means more taxes for the government which overall create a positive balance when put against German's payments into the EU. The same goes for all the bigger nations that "pay more than they get out" and probably some of the medium/smaller ones too.
You might end up happy that the UK benefits from having to not pay the EU but are ignoring that this will create costs in all kinds of other departments. Stuff like this: https://www.ft.com/content/13e183ee-c099-11e7-b8a3-38a6e068f464 or this: http://theconversation.com/who-picked-british-fruit-and-veg-before-migrant-workers-63279 means that those fruits don't get sold, don't create more revenue, and don't create more taxes. Also the people who would have been employed would pay taxes and contribute to the economy while there (buy stuff like food and whatever they need). All that economic potential that will be reduced once the UK is out won't be shown on the Brexit balance sheet but will affect the UKs economy. Plus there's all the wasted produce.
I’m glad to see various members of the UK government condemning him. I hope that they are clear that this kind of view is not acceptable and he is not welcome in the UK unless he apologises for spreading these divisive, hateful lies.
The Times reports that Britain's proposal tries to avoid "regulatory divergence" between Northern Ireland and the European Union by giving more power to the Northern Irish government so it can ensure "convergence" with the Republic of Ireland on issues like agriculture and energy.
It means Northern Ireland could end up following European Union regulations long after Brexit, even as the rest of the United Kingdom moves away from them.
No regulatory divergence is a voter-friendly version of "staying in the customs union", and controls on goods flowing from NI to Britain (unless the rest of the UK stays as well). That's a defacto border between NI and GB.
Let's see how the DUP takes that, since they've been opposed to devolution all along.
That’s a massive fudge. Basically the UK government have realised there is no way they can both make their hardliners happy and keep any sensible agreement on Ireland. Thanks to Mays stupid election she is now at the behest of a small number of hardliners in safe seats.
Kilkrazy wrote: ...However, part of me agrees with the New Statesman. The Left should aim for a hard Brexit because the resulting economic chaos will plunge the UK into a bitter furnace of destruction that offers the potential for renewal on a large scale renewal of our social and political contracts.
In other words, let everything burn, make the Conservative Party own the burning, use this to crush their discredited system of the world, and establish a better one. It will take a generation to get any good results, but that's going to happen anyway.
However much I would like to see the right wing split and fracture, and see the their ideology given a good hard reality check, I would absolutely hate for the rest of the country to have to suffer as a result of their hubris.
Surprisingly it's not as bad as you'd expect, because so much of the bad policy that could happen has already been institutionalized for years. What does conform to expectations is how deeply amusing it is to watch them squirm.
I’m glad to see various members of the UK government condemning him. I hope that they are clear that this kind of view is not acceptable and he is not welcome in the UK unless he apologises for spreading these divisive, hateful lies.
Not really the harsh rebuttal that should have been issued. We are so scared of damaging trade deals that even the backing of a far right hate group seems to be par for the course.
Another feather in Brexit's cap.
I watched a few clips from channel 4 about Leave voters reactions to the 50bn, and a good third said they'd change their vote now if they could.
In 10-15 years at least another third will be dead as well, leaving their families to pick up the pieces
True, but it’s more than I expected of them. Although I have seen since that the government have refused to cancel the offer of a state visit. Hopefully given Trumps refusals to back down they won’t just let it go. Although I doubt it.
As a side hobby, I sell miniature wargaming products. Thanks to the weak £ my sales are doing pretty good, and a lot of my customers are outside Europe.
Fortress Europe?
I'm getting into bed with the Australians, the Vietnamese, Thailand, India, China, you name it.
The world's population is what, 7 billion? Europe is what? 600 million?
So most of the world's trade is outside of Europe. That's common sense. Asia is booming.
The usual cry from Remainers will be the EU's political clout etc etc
But not if it takes years to negotiate a deal. We'll all be dead by then.
The main stumbling block for a UK/India trade deal is Visas, but I say let the Indian students in. We can't keep people out in this globalised world, so let's choose the cream de la cream.
They will be drawn from the middle classes, a lot of whom are Anglophiles, will be young, have their own cash, and young people are less likely to be ill = less strain on the NHS.
And a lot of them will probably stay on as doctors, nurses, dentists, etc etc anyway
Roll out the red carpet for them.
The future is Asia, not these deadbeats in Europe rolling around in red tape.
As a side hobby, I sell miniature wargaming products. Thanks to the weak £ my sales are doing pretty good, and a lot of my customers are outside Europe.
Fortress Europe?
I'm getting into bed with the Australians, the Vietnamese, Thailand, India, China, you name it.
The world's population is what, 7 billion? Europe is what? 600 million?
So most of the world's trade is outside of Europe. That's common sense. Asia is booming.
The usual cry from Remainers will be the EU's political clout etc etc
But not if it takes years to negotiate a deal. We'll all be dead by then.
The main stumbling block for a UK/India trade deal is Visas, but I say let the Indian students in. We can't keep people out in this globalised world, so let's choose the cream de la cream.
They will be drawn from the middle classes, a lot of whom are Anglophiles, will be young, have their own cash, and young people are less likely to be ill = less strain on the NHS.
And a lot of them will probably stay on as doctors, nurses, dentists, etc etc anyway
Roll out the red carpet for them.
The future is Asia, not these deadbeats in Europe rolling around in red tape.
Very convenient you have a side hobby that also allows you to back up your political views. Ironically, it also exposes that typical 'Well I'm alright jack' attitude that seems to be at the rotten core of the Brexit baby boomer vote.
If you have any understanding of how student visas work, and their rampant abuse, then you'll realise how stupid the cream de la cream comment is as well.
Look at the GAT 7 and see how many European countries are in it.
Also the EU has got trade deals in place or coming with countries like South Korea and Canada. Post-Brexit UK will have to negotiate all of those over again.
Look at the GAT 7 and see how many European countries are in it.
Also the EU has got trade deals in place or coming with countries like South Korea and Canada. Post-Brexit UK will have to negotiate all of those over again.
Yeah, but Kilkrazy, you know as well as I do that nothing stays the same for ever. As Asia and Brazil continues to develop, these countries will eventually overtake Europe in terms of raw economic clout.
The world is 'shrinking' in the sense that air and sea travel will get better and better every year. The internet has obviously 'shrunk' the world.
Most of the world is out side Europe. That's a fact, so no source needed.
Our commonwealth partners are outside Europe, with the exception of Cyprus and Malta.
The Africa/Asia/Pacific zone is where the action is. Let's set sail
As a side hobby, I sell miniature wargaming products. Thanks to the weak £ my sales are doing pretty good, and a lot of my customers are outside Europe.
Fortress Europe?
I'm getting into bed with the Australians, the Vietnamese, Thailand, India, China, you name it.
The world's population is what, 7 billion? Europe is what? 600 million?
So most of the world's trade is outside of Europe. That's common sense. Asia is booming.
The usual cry from Remainers will be the EU's political clout etc etc
But not if it takes years to negotiate a deal. We'll all be dead by then.
The main stumbling block for a UK/India trade deal is Visas, but I say let the Indian students in. We can't keep people out in this globalised world, so let's choose the cream de la cream.
They will be drawn from the middle classes, a lot of whom are Anglophiles, will be young, have their own cash, and young people are less likely to be ill = less strain on the NHS.
And a lot of them will probably stay on as doctors, nurses, dentists, etc etc anyway
Roll out the red carpet for them.
The future is Asia, not these deadbeats in Europe rolling around in red tape.
Very convenient you have a side hobby that also allows you to back up your political views. Ironically, it also exposes that typical 'Well I'm alright jack' attitude that seems to be at the rotten core of the Brexit baby boomer vote.
If you have any understanding of how student visas work, and their rampant abuse, then you'll realise how stupid the cream de la cream comment is as well.
Sadly, I'm not a millionaire, and you'll find that most of the middle-class voted Remain. I'm not middle-class either.
I think that everybody, and I mean everybody on dakka, is in complete agreement that most Brexit support came from Britain's working-classes.
Sadly, I'm not a millionaire, and you'll find that most of the middle-class voted Remain. I'm not middle-class either.
I think that everybody, and I mean everybody on dakka, is in complete agreement that most Brexit support came from Britain's working-classes.
Not sure why you thought that a meaningful reply to Thebiggesthat's post, which didn't make reference to your wealth or social class in any way, but people vote against their own interests all the time, so the fact that the bulk of leave voters were working class isn't very meaningful without a wealth of additional data.
Look at the GAT 7 and see how many European countries are in it.
Also the EU has got trade deals in place or coming with countries like South Korea and Canada. Post-Brexit UK will have to negotiate all of those over again.
Yeah, but Kilkrazy, you know as well as I do that nothing stays the same for ever. As Asia and Brazil continues to develop, these countries will eventually overtake Europe in terms of raw economic clout.
1.- is, of course, that by the time those countries' citizens have similar purchasing power as Europe everyone in this board will probably be dead.
2.- is that the EU as a good head start (at least a decade) on having deals with those countries. Better deals, too, because of clout and leverage the UK will lack post-Brexit.
It's an almost textbook definition of shooting yourself in the foot then try to run a marathon.
You're also making the mistake of assuming that growth numbers will stay constant ad infinitum. Brazil, China, India etc. are growing rapidly because they had, and still have, a really low standard to start with. It's much easier to have double digit GDP growth when the GDP gonsists of a stick and two leaves than when you're dealing with advanced electronics.
Also, you'd think there's been enough instances of being laughably wrong in this thread that common sense would have been brought behind the proverbial shed and taken out of its misery by now. It's getting to the point where "common sense" is now short-hand for "I haven't actually got a clue, but I'll argue my point anyway!"
For all aspects of the political spectrum. You may want to ask for clarification and evidence whenever you read the following statements in someone's political musings...
1. Everyone knows
2. It's common knowledge
3. Stands to reason
4. It's just common sense
5. It's obvious that
6. Tells it like it is (this is a great time to play a quick game of 'spot the bare faced liar')
Chances are they're signs of someone trying to present wild opinion as popular opinion, and from there trying to make it a 'fact'.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For all aspects of the political spectrum. You may want to ask for clarification and evidence whenever you read the following statements in someone's political musings...
1. Everyone knows
2. It's common knowledge
3. Stands to reason
4. It's just common sense
5. It's obvious that
6. Tells it like it is (this is a great time to play a quick game of 'spot the bare faced liar')
That sounds like a great soundtrack, can you get it in HMV?
Look at the GAT 7 and see how many European countries are in it.
Also the EU has got trade deals in place or coming with countries like South Korea and Canada. Post-Brexit UK will have to negotiate all of those over again.
Yeah, but Kilkrazy, you know as well as I do that nothing stays the same for ever. As Asia and Brazil continues to develop, these countries will eventually overtake Europe in terms of raw economic clout.
The world is 'shrinking' in the sense that air and sea travel will get better and better every year. The internet has obviously 'shrunk' the world.
Most of the world is out side Europe. That's a fact, so no source needed.
Our commonwealth partners are outside Europe, with the exception of Cyprus and Malta.
The Africa/Asia/Pacific zone is where the action is. Let's set sail
... ...
Your premise seems to be that the EU will not make free trade deals with BRICS countries and that Europe has no scientific or engineering capability.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're also making the mistake of assuming that growth numbers will stay constant ad infinitum. Brazil, China, India etc. are growing rapidly because they had, and still have, a really low standard to start with. It's much easier to have double digit GDP growth when the GDP gonsists of a stick and two leaves than when you're dealing with advanced electronics.
Also, you'd think there's been enough instances of being laughably wrong in this thread that common sense would have been brought behind the proverbial shed and taken out of its misery by now. It's getting to the point where "common sense" is now short-hand for "I haven't actually got a clue, but I'll argue my point anyway!"
So when I say that most of the world's population doesn't live in Europe, please tell me which part of that is wrong.
When I say that Asia's economic growth is outstripping that of Europe's, please tell me which part of that is wrong.
It's gotten to the stage where I can't even say a basic fact such as most of the world lives outside Europe, without you querying it.
It's been a familiar pattern from you these past months. If I say grass is green, you say no. if I say snow is white, you say it's black.
I'm giving you notice now that I'm putting you on ignore. I no longer wish to engage in conversation with you.
Eventually China and Brazil will be as rich as Europe is now, and that means they will be good markets for European goods.
However there is nothing about the EU that prevents the EU from trading with those nations, and the EU will be more easily able to create good trade deals with them because it will be doing so from a position of relatively greater strength than the UK alone.
Sadly, I'm not a millionaire, and you'll find that most of the middle-class voted Remain. I'm not middle-class either.
I think that everybody, and I mean everybody on dakka, is in complete agreement that most Brexit support came from Britain's working-classes.
Not sure why you thought that a meaningful reply to Thebiggesthat's post, which didn't make reference to your wealth or social class in any way, but people vote against their own interests all the time, so the fact that the bulk of leave voters were working class isn't very meaningful without a wealth of additional data.
I'm all right jack commonly refers to the well to do who've done well for themselves and pulled up the ladder behind them.
Baby-boomers are unfairly seen as living the good life on high value pensions, whilst sitting in ex-council homes in London worth millions, which they were able to buy for £5 back in the 1980s or something. And they all went to Oxford as well, and got grants of £50,000 a year whilst they were there etc etc
The above is the common stereotype abut the baby boomers these days: most of Britain is all living in cardboard boxes, whilst they're living the good life at our expense.
So yeah, I took that comment to be a criticism of my wealth and status.
Look at the GAT 7 and see how many European countries are in it.
Also the EU has got trade deals in place or coming with countries like South Korea and Canada. Post-Brexit UK will have to negotiate all of those over again.
Yeah, but Kilkrazy, you know as well as I do that nothing stays the same for ever. As Asia and Brazil continues to develop, these countries will eventually overtake Europe in terms of raw economic clout.
1.- is, of course, that by the time those countries' citizens have similar purchasing power as Europe everyone in this board will probably be dead.
2.- is that the EU as a good head start (at least a decade) on having deals with those countries. Better deals, too, because of clout and leverage the UK will lack post-Brexit.
It's an almost textbook definition of shooting yourself in the foot then try to run a marathon.
We need at least a decade before either one of us is proven right or wrong. We may still be on dakka in 10 years time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For all aspects of the political spectrum. You may want to ask for clarification and evidence whenever you read the following statements in someone's political musings...
1. Everyone knows
2. It's common knowledge
3. Stands to reason
4. It's just common sense
5. It's obvious that
6. Tells it like it is (this is a great time to play a quick game of 'spot the bare faced liar')
Chances are they're signs of someone trying to present wild opinion as popular opinion, and from there trying to make it a 'fact'.
Like I said earlier, do I really need to provide a source that says most of the world's population lives outside Europe?
Is it not fair to use a term such as: it's common knowledge that most of the world's population lives outside Europe.
I mean, come on. What do people want from me? A round the world tour?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're also making the mistake of assuming that growth numbers will stay constant ad infinitum. Brazil, China, India etc. are growing rapidly because they had, and still have, a really low standard to start with. It's much easier to have double digit GDP growth when the GDP gonsists of a stick and two leaves than when you're dealing with advanced electronics.
Also, you'd think there's been enough instances of being laughably wrong in this thread that common sense would have been brought behind the proverbial shed and taken out of its misery by now. It's getting to the point where "common sense" is now short-hand for "I haven't actually got a clue, but I'll argue my point anyway!"
So when I say that most of the world's population doesn't live in Europe, please tell me which part of that is wrong.
When I say that Asia's economic growth is outstripping that of Europe's, please tell me which part of that is wrong.
It's gotten to the stage where I can't even say a basic fact such as most of the world lives outside Europe, without you querying it.
It's been a familiar pattern from you these past months. If I say grass is green, you say no. if I say snow is white, you say it's black.
I'm giving you notice now that I'm putting you on ignore. I no longer wish to engage in conversation with you.
Good day to you sir.
No one is s ignoring your facts. They are disputing your conclusion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Most of the worlds population is outside of Europe but also gak poor.
Various economies are growing faster than Europe because they started low. They'll take decades to overtake us, and when they do Europe will have better trade deals than us.
Until they overtake Europe, it's stupid to dump Europe for them.
Herzlos wrote: There does appear to be growing demand for a second referendum now that more information is being presented and the realities and lies have been exposed. I watched a few clips from channel 4 about Leave voters reactions to the 50bn, and a good third said they'd change their vote now if they could.
I think this is somewhat optimistic, as the source below shows. But it's also irrelevant. The referendum that got us into this situation had nothing to do with public demand for one, but instead internal Tory politics. If there is a second referendum it will happen for much the same reasons.
YouGov wrote:Remainers beware: people who think Britain was wrong to vote to leave the EU do not necessarily think the referendum result should be reverse
In a recent YouGov poll for The Times, there appeared to be good news for those who want Britain to remain in the European Union and bad news for those who favour Brexit.
After 16 months of tracking Bregret (or rather, thus far, the relative lack of it), a record high of 47% said they thought Britain was wrong to vote leave the EU, coupled with a record low of 42% saying we were right to do so.
Each individual poll has a margin of error so it is important not to take one set of results out of context. In our most recent poll the numbers have reverted back slightly, with just a 3% gap between right and wrong to leave. However, when you look at the last few months together the trend does seem to be towards slightly more people thinking Britain was wrong to vote to leave the EU.
The average of YouGov’s five most recent polls shows 43% saying we were right to vote to leave and 45% saying we were wrong. By contrast, on average the first five polls of this year saw 46% saying we were right to leave and 42% wrong.
But before anyone gets carried away with the possible implications of this shift, it is important to note that thinking Britain was wrong to vote to leave is not the same as thinking the referendum result should be reversed.
Some Remain voters don’t like the destination, but have strapped in for the ride
In a recent poll we asked Britons which of four different routes they would prefer the Brexit process take. Four in ten (40%) wanted to continue with Brexit on current negotiating terms, whilst 12% wanted Britain to seek a “softer” Brexit – meaning a “go ahead” majority of 52%.
Just 18% wanted a second referendum and a further 14% wanted Brexit abandoned completely, a total of 32% for an “attempt to reverse” Brexit. The remaining 16% said they didn’t know.
The main reason there are so many more people wanting Brexit to proceed rather than halted is because some Remain voters, though still thinking that leaving is the wrong decision, believe that the result of the referendum should be respected. (Previous YouGov research on this group labelled them “Re-leavers”). For example, whilst eight in ten (79%) Leave voters pick one of the “go ahead” options, so do 28% of Remain voters.
This might be changing, though.
Over the past few months, Remain voters’ views have started swinging back towards wanting Britain to stay in the EU. While in June a majority of Remain voters (51%) supported a “go ahead” option, by the end of September this had fallen to 28%. Over the same period the proportion of Remain voters backing an “attempt to reverse” approach rose from 44% to 61%.
As we get further and further away from the referendum itself more people might start to think it is legitimate to try to stop Brexit, and eventually there could be a majority that want to stop Brexit.
But for the moment the public still believe that Brexit means Brexit.
Briefly returning to the item about Trump's possible state visit to the UK, the smart thinking is that the government will quietly kick the ball into the long grass and hope that Trump never asks for it.
The general opinion is that the British public are so hostile to Trump (something like 80% disapproval rating) that a high profile visit would end up doing worse damage to UK/US relations than not having one at all.
And that ends US politic discussion in the UK thread, please...
There are various barriers that exist with trade to China and Brazil that don't exist with Europe; time zone, distance, culture.
China is incredibly hard for the west to make money in. It's a political minefield at all levels. They really don't want to buy that much British stuff and what they do buy can take weeks to get there.
I don't know about Brazilian trade but I doubt it's easier than trading with France.
Distance wise you have fuel and time to worry about. Just in time stock is he'll ish to deal with if goods take weeks to turn up with unpredictable customs clearance.
I don't doubt you've seen a spike in non eu sales since gbp is jn the gutter and some stuff is hard to source for the minority that have the money. From my war games selling its been maybe 90% uk 10% Europe but I don't do the volume you do.
Sadly, I'm not a millionaire, and you'll find that most of the middle-class voted Remain. I'm not middle-class either.
I think that everybody, and I mean everybody on dakka, is in complete agreement that most Brexit support came from Britain's working-classes.
Not sure why you thought that a meaningful reply to Thebiggesthat's post, which didn't make reference to your wealth or social class in any way, but people vote against their own interests all the time, so the fact that the bulk of leave voters were working class isn't very meaningful without a wealth of additional data.
I'm all right jack commonly refers to the well to do who've done well for themselves and pulled up the ladder behind them.
Nope. It quite specifically refers to people who put believe everything is hunky dory so long as they perceive their own circumstances to be so. It doesn't matter whether they're millionaires or impoverished, only that they are contented.
Baby-boomers are unfairly seen as living the good life on high value pensions, whilst sitting in ex-council homes in London worth millions, which they were able to buy for £5 back in the 1980s or something. And they all went to Oxford as well, and got grants of £50,000 a year whilst they were there etc etc
The above is the common stereotype abut the baby boomers these days: most of Britain is all living in cardboard boxes, whilst they're living the good life at our expense.
Nobody thinks this. Lots of people do rightly observe that the baby-boomer generation are vastly wealthier than, and have consistently voted to remove opportunities their generation had from, the following generations.
You really need to stop presenting stereotypes that barely exist as dominant narratives.
And everyone says the next generation is worse than the one before it.
The baby boomers were luckier and they no doubt believed that the previous generation was better off and they were doing everything to prevent their own growth.
Most people also see that not only did the Baby Boomer generation have it all, they then took the ladder up with them.
Wrecked the housing market? CHECK!
Wrecked the economy? More than once!
Voted to make young folk pay for Uni? Squeezin' them til the pips squeak!
Consider anyone younger than them who haven't had the same privileges to therefore be lazy? DING DING DING! SELFISH BINGO!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: And everyone says the next generation is worse than the one before it.
The baby boomers were luckier and they no doubt believed that the previous generation was better off and they were doing everything to prevent their own growth.
Twaddle.
Previous generation had nowt. They set up the NHS, and ensured all the things their kids then took away from future generations.
Sadly, I'm not a millionaire, and you'll find that most of the middle-class voted Remain. I'm not middle-class either.
I think that everybody, and I mean everybody on dakka, is in complete agreement that most Brexit support came from Britain's working-classes.
Not sure why you thought that a meaningful reply to Thebiggesthat's post, which didn't make reference to your wealth or social class in any way, but people vote against their own interests all the time, so the fact that the bulk of leave voters were working class isn't very meaningful without a wealth of additional data.
I'm all right jack commonly refers to the well to do who've done well for themselves and pulled up the ladder behind them.
Nope. It quite specifically refers to people who put believe everything is hunky dory so long as they perceive their own circumstances to be so. It doesn't matter whether they're millionaires or impoverished, only that they are contented.
Baby-boomers are unfairly seen as living the good life on high value pensions, whilst sitting in ex-council homes in London worth millions, which they were able to buy for £5 back in the 1980s or something. And they all went to Oxford as well, and got grants of £50,000 a year whilst they were there etc etc
The above is the common stereotype abut the baby boomers these days: most of Britain is all living in cardboard boxes, whilst they're living the good life at our expense.
Nobody thinks this. Lots of people do rightly observe that the baby-boomer generation are vastly wealthier than, and have consistently voted to remove opportunities their generation had from, the following generations.
You really need to stop presenting stereotypes that barely exist as dominant narratives.
You may as well hit your head repeatedly against a brick wall. He reads what he wants to read, and replies accordingly.
It's this behavior from others of his age, that are fueling the growing divisions in this country.
Deadnight wrote: and I'd prefer a European army to the damned warmongering NATO regime)
What makes you think the EU won't be just as warmongering?
Big military industrial complexes once established need to find ways to justify their continued existence. And the EU like most Empires is expansionist. It is inevitable that the EU will find itself in conflict with other nations.
It's just less bloody to sell warmongering equipment to third parties and let them blow each other apart than to start wars yourself. That's at least what german arms manufacturers are doing.
Oh so warmongering is OK as long as its other people dying and not us? Might as well make a profit out of it, eh?
I'm pretty sure there was sarcastic disapproval in Mario's post. Like many Western countries, Germany profits from selling arms of all kinds to Saudi Arabia and a few other questionable buyers, but I haven't yet talked to anybody actually being happy about German arms being used in opaque, complex, multi-sided and every changing middle eastern conflicts.
Witzkatz wrote: I'm pretty sure there was sarcastic disapproval in Mario's post. Like many Western countries, Germany profits from selling arms of all kinds to Saudi Arabia and a few other questionable buyers, but I haven't yet talked to anybody actually being happy about German arms being used in opaque, complex, multi-sided and every changing middle eastern conflicts.
Realpolitik dictates that even modern democratic societies need to keep armed forces, which in turn need to be equipped with very expensive stuff whose almost unique function is to kill people wholesale. Realeconomicks say that the manufacture, sales and maintenance of such people-killing devices employs a lot of people, more often than not very well paid.
And of course, if you don't do it some other country will.
welshhoppo wrote: And everyone says the next generation is worse than the one before it.
The baby boomers were luckier and they no doubt believed that the previous generation was better off and they were doing everything to prevent their own growth.
I don’t know what baby boomers believed when they were young, but there is plenty of objective evidence that anyone under 40 now is worse off in almost every way that the over 55s. Wealth, housing, standards of living, pensions, job security, even life expectancy. These are not subjective feelings, they are objective facts. I will work longer, for less, to pay out more and die younger than my parants.
Previous generation had nowt. They set up the NHS, and ensured all the things their kids then took away from future generations.
Do....do you actually live in the real world?
Strictly speaking it wasn't the baby boomers that were responsible for the NHS it was the generation before that as it was set up in 1948.
It's an interesting point that this generation is actually against Wrexit. It really is only the early retirees that (e..g baby boomers) that prefer it. There is thinking that the WWII generation remember the issues that started the whole problems and how it referendums/anti immigration messages/'the world's being mean to us' mentality was used by populists to gain power and retain it. In comparison that is what the Tories are doing, but in a less dramatic style, by killing off debate, using old out dated legislation to force through what they want etc. There is an argument that Baby boomers in general (not all) benefited from a period of sustained growth but and continue to want the best for themselves regardless because of the way they vote (for example even talk about touching the pensions is tantamount to political suicide for the Tories, but happy for the young to indebted for a lifetime etc). It basically comes down to voting what they think is best for themselves (which is by no means prevalent to just that age group, I've heard my brother say the same) but there does seem to be increasing awareness of the damage that causes in the younger generation (likely because they are more exposed to it).
Like I said earlier, do I really need to provide a source that says most of the world's population lives outside Europe?
Is it not fair to use a term such as: it's common knowledge that most of the world's population lives outside Europe.
I mean, come on. What do people want from me? A round the world tour?
You are also misunderstanding where the money comes from at the moment. Relatively a few people (and big corporations) do well because they exploit the populace at large to make money off Europe and America. The money they create generally comes from the same countries that you are proposing should trade with them. Hence you have a circular system. You can only create wealth if that wealth is genuinely being created in that country. In the end it works to an equilibrium position as the wealth balances out across nations even if not by individuals.
Whirlwind wrote: It's an interesting point that this generation is actually against Wrexit. It really is only the early retirees that (e..g baby boomers) that prefer it. There is thinking that the WWII generation remember the issues that started the whole problems and how it referendums/anti immigration messages/'the world's being mean to us' mentality was used by populists to gain power and retain it. In comparison that is what the Tories are doing, but in a less dramatic style, by killing off debate, using old out dated legislation to force through what they want etc. There is an argument that Baby boomers in general (not all) benefited from a period of sustained growth but and continue to want the best for themselves regardless because of the way they vote (for example even talk about touching the pensions is tantamount to political suicide for the Tories, but happy for the young to indebted for a lifetime etc). It basically comes down to voting what they think is best for themselves (which is by no means prevalent to just that age group, I've heard my brother say the same) but there does seem to be increasing awareness of the damage that causes in the younger generation (likely because they are more exposed to it).
Obviously with an anonymous ballot it isn't possible to know with certainty how a particular demographic voted, but here's the final YouGov poll reweighted to produce the actual outcome. It ought to be broadly correct with the specific potentially out a few percentage points.
I can't find anywhere that breaks down the over 65 result, apart from some pre-poll speculation from a pollster that voters 75+ were less hostile (but still pro-Brexit) than those younger than them.
AndrewC wrote: I wonder just how many people here actually lived through the troubles? And I mean that in a way that they were actively, cognitivly aware of what was going on?
Unless you are old enough I would ask that you not go slinging accusations about.
I honestly hope that there is not a reoccurence of the violence, because those were very dark days, very much reenacted with the persecution of minority muslims in other countries. However if there is, it is not the sole province of Brexiteers to take responsibility and blame for this. There are two parties to these negotiations and both sides need to take blame. Both parties need to take a long hard look at themselves. Notice has been served to leave the EU. It is then up to both parties to create a solution. Ireland and the EU sticking their heads in the sand saying that its up the the UK to find the solution is deluding themselves. Failure on their side to find that medium solutions puts the blame as squarely on their shoulders as those who voted for Brexit.
Cheers
Andrew
I did, I was around 20 when the ceasefires were declared. I lived went to school in North Belfast (in what was known as the murder triangle) I now live on my uncles farm just a few miles out of the city. It seemed normal at the time for my generation at that time we knew nothing else. Looking back it was crazy.
I don’t think the IRA could return to violence again, at least not for long or in any prolonged way and they know it. The intelligence services had them completely infiltrated by the end. The IRA was a tiny organisation and many of them were locked up, they were beaten but didn’t know how to stop without saving face. Tony Blair gave it to them. They now are still as heavily infiltrated but their weapons are decommissioned...... or at the least pretty rusty by now. Getting fresh arms won’t be so easy this time and they know it.
People in NI have got used to peace and there would be little or no support from the republican community for any full scale campaign.
Also they are having remarkable success politically, i doubt they would risk that for a violent campaign they know will be doomed from the start.
The IRA and Sinn Fein have threatened violence many times over the years when it suits this is nothing new. Remember Gerry’s ‘they haven’t gone away’
Don’t forget we have had the so called dissidents, who have failed to ignite any support or prolonged campaign and have been around for years. Obviously I’m not trying to minimise the misery they have caused but it’s not on the same scale as the provos.
The mouthing from the Republic of Ireland and Sinn Fein should be treated as it is, hot air. Britain should get on with Brexit, there’s enough to worry about without stressing over rusty rifles.
Our economy is based on low wages. People are paid ‘affordably’ low wages only because food is so cheap, because those prices are based on fruit pickers paid buttons. You could get fruit pickers in the UK if you paid a fair wage, but the food prices would rise. Similarly farmers could be paid properly for milk instead of being ripped off by the supermarkets. Don’t blame UK workers for not wanting to be paid gak wages, or the farmers, or the migrants coming here to live ten to a house to work in a field. Blame the corporate bosses of supermarkets effectiv it running a cartel to depress food prices and pressure food suppliers into taking minimal prices for product.
Ultimately food prices would rise if workers and farmers paid properly and expose just how poor the minimum wage really is. The gulf between the rich and poor has grown under successive governments, and middle earners still support the payment of tax credits to subsidise corporations paying low wages.
Things have to change, everyone lower down needs to earn more and it could be done if government wasn’t hand in glove with these corporations kissing their ass.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Our economy is based on low wages. People are paid ‘affordably’ low wages only because food is so cheap, because those prices are based on fruit pickers paid buttons. You could get fruit pickers in the UK if you paid a fair wage, but the food prices would rise. Similarly farmers could be paid properly for milk instead of being ripped off by the supermarkets. Don’t blame UK workers for not wanting to be paid gak wages, or the farmers, or the migrants coming here to live ten to a house to work in a field. Blame the corporate bosses of supermarkets effectiv it running a cartel to depress food prices and pressure food suppliers into taking minimal prices for product.
Ultimately food prices would rise if workers and farmers paid properly and expose just how poor the minimum wage really is. The gulf between the rich and poor has grown under successive governments, and middle earners still support the payment of tax credits to subsidise corporations paying low wages.
Things have to change, everyone lower down needs to earn more and it could be done if government wasn’t hand in glove with these corporations kissing their ass.
Absolutely. Unfortunately continued agri subsidies from Brussels have allowed food to be produced at cost price. The cost of production is met by sales and the farmer picks up he subsidy as his salary..... on a good year, a bad year means he is eating into the subsidy to survive. People think agri subs benefit the farmer but reality is the supermarkets gain most. They get a cheap product which they can massively mark up because the farmer will continue to farm because of the sub. Vicious circle with only one winner.
welshhoppo wrote: And everyone says the next generation is worse than the one before it.
The baby boomers were luckier and they no doubt believed that the previous generation was better off and they were doing everything to prevent their own growth.
I don’t know what baby boomers believed when they were young, but there is plenty of objective evidence that anyone under 40 now is worse off in almost every way that the over 55s. Wealth, housing, standards of living, pensions, job security, even life expectancy. These are not subjective feelings, they are objective facts. I will work longer, for less, to pay out more and die younger than my parants.
Well put it this way. The 1920s were called the Golden 20s for a reason.
I get that life is different than it was 20-30 years ago. But life expectancy is still increasing and that's a problem. People are taking too damn long to die and it affects everything else.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we got rid of state pensions and made them all private.
Maybe they did think the past was better, although one decade being seen as as good doesn’t show much, but all of the evidence shows that it’s not the case. As I said, by all objective measurements the under 40s have been screwed. I will admit life expectancy depends on how you measure it, but in the past that’s not been any doubt that life expectancy would go up:
Paying farmers more drives inflation, as the wage increase has to come from somewhere. That leads to increased food prices, which means everyone else wants higher wage increases to cope with rising food prices and so on creating an evil circle.
Obviously with an anonymous ballot it isn't possible to know with certainty how a particular demographic voted, but here's the final YouGov poll reweighted to produce the actual outcome. It ought to be broadly correct with the specific potentially out a few percentage points.
I can't find anywhere that breaks down the over 65 result, apart from some pre-poll speculation from a pollster that voters 75+ were less hostile (but still pro-Brexit) than those younger than them.
Yeah there is little direct evidence and the number in the WWII category are also dwindling fast so the sample size is limited. However ancillary reports seems to back up that this age group are generally opposed to the current ideology making headway.
Probably explains why apples are rotting in fields unpicked.
What it doesn't provide is a breakdown by the types of people leaving. If it's bankers, scientists (some are leaving) etc then overall it's bad news because you are just increasing your low skilled workforce.
Food pickers etc is actually a wash because most of them are only in transit anyway they come during picking season and leave when over so actually their net figure is zero as they come and go in the same year. It does mean less people are coming to do those jobs though but it can't really explain the reason for the decrease.
It's bad news in the long term. We are an aging population, we can't really afford to let immigration slide else in 20-40 years we are going to have a big problem. Of course the majority of the elderly people that voted for this mess won't actually be around to see it so they can be happy living in their bit of little England.
Ultimately food prices would rise if workers and farmers paid properly and expose just how poor the minimum wage really is. The gulf between the rich and poor has grown under successive governments, and middle earners still support the payment of tax credits to subsidise corporations paying low wages.
the problem is that this just drives inflation. Apart from the industrial farms, farmers aren't rolling in cash. They put the prices up, the supermarket does to keep profits higher, which ultimately means diddly squat for the lower paid workers. Yes they are paid more but the costs have gone up equivalently.
One way to stop they cycle is how you shop. Use direct farmer shops etc that cuts out the middle supermarket, puts more money into the farmers hands but is still cheaper allowing more money to be paid to workers etc. But yes the government does use the poor and middle class to help the very rich.
Absolutely. Unfortunately continued agri subsidies from Brussels have allowed food to be produced at cost price. The cost of production is met by sales and the farmer picks up he subsidy as his salary..... on a good year, a bad year means he is eating into the subsidy to survive. People think agri subs benefit the farmer but reality is the supermarkets gain most. They get a cheap product which they can massively mark up because the farmer will continue to farm because of the sub. Vicious circle with only one winner.
The problem is though that if you open yourself up to free trade from countries that pay much less than you per worker (and I mean pence) then without subsidies our own farmers simply can't compete with the demand for cheap food. This is likely to happen in the UK. I've discussed the sugar beet / cane sugar issue before. But free trade means that cane sugar will become dirt cheap, a lot of farmers rely on sugar beet as a staple; it will put farmers out of business because they can't afford to live on pence per hour. Of course who do you think comes from a sugar cane company....David Davis....
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Paying farmers more drives inflation, as the wage increase has to come from somewhere. That leads to increased food prices, which means everyone else wants higher wage increases to cope with rising food prices and so on creating an evil circle.
The average UK home spends 11% of its income on food which puts an obvious limit on how much inflation in food prices can fuel overall inflation.
Here is UK food inflation for the last 10 years. Both sets of figures come from the Office of National Statistics.
Finally, your model is too simplistic. Considered narrowly, paying farmers more only drives inflation if their increased wages outstrips productivity growth. Considered broadly, it only drives overall inflation if it overcomes other sources of deflation.
Do_I_Not_Like_That, about all those rising economies. What you do think would be better for them, to make one trade deal with the EU or the UK (from a volume of transaction point of view)? What will be their priorities once they have money to spend?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Oh so warmongering is OK as long as its other people dying and not us? Might as well make a profit out of it, eh?
Witzkatz is correct, it's disapproval of the situation. I didn't want to add an emoticon, that might have looked even more like what you interpreted it, as if it's actually a smart thing to do. Germany may not be directly involved in many wars these days but our arms manufacturers are making a lot of money from all kinds of governments and groups. Those weapon then create havoc and refugees but then in turn people worry about us never being able to pay for the refugees' needs that end up here from the same warzones we indirectly helped create.
It's the same with globalisation, everybody's happy to buy cheap stuff made somewhere else (and that pollutes their lands) but when poor people safe up some money and want to emigrate to the nice places (like the USA or Europe) suddenly the effects of globalisation become really worrying. We, the developed world, like to (ab)use globalisation but act differently when others would like to do the same.
Herzlos wrote: There does appear to be growing demand for a second referendum now that more information is being presented and the realities and lies have been exposed. I watched a few clips from channel 4 about Leave voters reactions to the 50bn, and a good third said they'd change their vote now if they could.
I think this is somewhat optimistic, as the source below shows. But it's also irrelevant. The referendum that got us into this situation had nothing to do with public demand for one, but instead internal Tory politics. If there is a second referendum it will happen for much the same reasons.
YouGov wrote:Remainers beware: people who think Britain was wrong to vote to leave the EU do not necessarily think the referendum result should be reverse
In a recent YouGov poll for The Times, there appeared to be good news for those who want Britain to remain in the European Union and bad news for those who favour Brexit.
After 16 months of tracking Bregret (or rather, thus far, the relative lack of it), a record high of 47% said they thought Britain was wrong to vote leave the EU, coupled with a record low of 42% saying we were right to do so.
Each individual poll has a margin of error so it is important not to take one set of results out of context. In our most recent poll the numbers have reverted back slightly, with just a 3% gap between right and wrong to leave. However, when you look at the last few months together the trend does seem to be towards slightly more people thinking Britain was wrong to vote to leave the EU.
The average of YouGov’s five most recent polls shows 43% saying we were right to vote to leave and 45% saying we were wrong. By contrast, on average the first five polls of this year saw 46% saying we were right to leave and 42% wrong.
But before anyone gets carried away with the possible implications of this shift, it is important to note that thinking Britain was wrong to vote to leave is not the same as thinking the referendum result should be reversed.
Some Remain voters don’t like the destination, but have strapped in for the ride
In a recent poll we asked Britons which of four different routes they would prefer the Brexit process take. Four in ten (40%) wanted to continue with Brexit on current negotiating terms, whilst 12% wanted Britain to seek a “softer” Brexit – meaning a “go ahead” majority of 52%.
Just 18% wanted a second referendum and a further 14% wanted Brexit abandoned completely, a total of 32% for an “attempt to reverse” Brexit. The remaining 16% said they didn’t know.
The main reason there are so many more people wanting Brexit to proceed rather than halted is because some Remain voters, though still thinking that leaving is the wrong decision, believe that the result of the referendum should be respected. (Previous YouGov research on this group labelled them “Re-leavers”). For example, whilst eight in ten (79%) Leave voters pick one of the “go ahead” options, so do 28% of Remain voters.
This might be changing, though.
Over the past few months, Remain voters’ views have started swinging back towards wanting Britain to stay in the EU. While in June a majority of Remain voters (51%) supported a “go ahead” option, by the end of September this had fallen to 28%. Over the same period the proportion of Remain voters backing an “attempt to reverse” approach rose from 44% to 61%.
As we get further and further away from the referendum itself more people might start to think it is legitimate to try to stop Brexit, and eventually there could be a majority that want to stop Brexit.
But for the moment the public still believe that Brexit means Brexit.
Interesting, however, that was from the end of last month. The channel 4 video concerned reaction to the Brexit bill of £50bn. I wonder how the Yougov statistics would fare now.
Net migration falls by more than 100,000 after Brexit vote
So for once, the May government is starting to deliver on a promise.
Problem seems to be that now non-EU migrants outnumber EU migrants by 2-to-1. Actually cut EU migration down to zero and you're still left with 173.000 immigrants.
"tens of thousands" was never going to be possible.
The more concerning thing is why immigration is down so much, and how we can control it. Is it down because of the drop in GBP? Because we're being viewed as xenophobes? Because the sectors migrants work in are being shafted?
Net migration falls by more than 100,000 after Brexit vote
So for once, the May government is starting to deliver on a promise.
Problem seems to be that now non-EU migrants outnumber EU migrants by 2-to-1. Actually cut EU migration down to zero and you're still left with 173.000 immigrants.
How's that "tens of thousands"?
Cameron pulled the figure of 100,000 out of his arse. He could have cut net migration nearly to 100,000 by simply banning all visas for non-EU people, who have always outnumbered EU immigrants. He didn't do it because it's not possible for various good reasons, though it's certainly legally possible due to sovereignty, especially if you ignore some human rights.
The Maybot has followed the same logic.
EU migration is down partly because the GBP has depreciated against the Polish Zloty by 25% in the past 18 months, making it not worthwhile for Poles to work in the UK. This is not the only reason, of course.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Paying farmers more drives inflation, as the wage increase has to come from somewhere. That leads to increased food prices, which means everyone else wants higher wage increases to cope with rising food prices and so on creating an evil circle.
The average UK home spends 11% of its income on food which puts an obvious limit on how much inflation in food prices can fuel overall inflation.
Here is UK food inflation for the last 10 years. Both sets of figures come from the Office of National Statistics.
Spoiler:
Finally, your model is too simplistic. Considered narrowly, paying farmers more only drives inflation if their increased wages outstrips productivity growth. Considered broadly, it only drives overall inflation if it overcomes other sources of deflation.
Fuel prices drive most of the food inflation. We are happy to keep OPEC countries lifting the high life, but not pay our farmers a reasonable wage as we demand chickens at 2 for £5. We can easily afford to pay a small extra amount on food, but we chose it to by giving all the power to the supermarkets, who work to ensure that farmers and farm workers work right on the limit. This can be done very reasonably, without driving up the household food budget, but it means a lot of people eating a little less meat. It could also be done by reducing housing costs. Unfortunately mother of these hints are going to happen soon.
Herzlos wrote: "tens of thousands" was never going to be possible.
The more concerning thing is why immigration is down so much, and how we can control it. Is it down because of the drop in GBP? Because we're being viewed as xenophobes? Because the sectors migrants work in are being shafted?
A former Scotland Yard detective has told BBC News he was "shocked" by the amount of pornography viewed on a computer seized from the Commons office of senior Tory MP Damian Green.
Neil Lewis examined the device during a 2008 inquiry into government leaks and has not spoken publicly before.
He said "thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography were on it.
Mr Green, Theresa May's deputy, has said he never watched or downloaded pornography on the computer.
Fellow Tory MP Andrew Mitchell defended Mr Green on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, saying: "It is the misuse of entirely legal information to blacken the name of a serving cabinet minister."
But Mr Lewis said a check of the computer's internet history over a three-month period showed pornography had been viewed "extensively".
n Tuesday, Scotland Yard confirmed its department for professional standards was examining allegations that Mr Lewis had disclosed confidential information.
A statement from the Metropolitan Police said: "Confidential information gathered during a police inquiry should not be made public."
'No doubt'
On some days, websites containing pornography were being searched for and opened for several hours.
Mr Lewis, who retired from the Metropolitan Police in 2014, said although "you can't put fingers on a keyboard", a number of factors meant that he was sure it was Mr Green, the MP for Ashford, Kent, who was accessing the pornographic material.
His analysis of the way the computer had been used left the former detective constable in "no doubt whatsoever" that it was Mr Green, who was then an opposition immigration spokesman but is now the first secretary of state.
"The computer was in Mr Green's office, on his desk, logged in, his account, his name," said Mr Lewis, who at the time was working as a computer forensics examiner for SO15, the counter-terrorism command.
"In between browsing pornography, he was sending emails from his account, his personal account, reading documents... it was ridiculous to suggest anybody else could have done it."
Similar material had also been accessed on Mr Green's laptop, he claimed.
A Cabinet Office inquiry, set up last month to investigate allegations that the 61-year-old had made inappropriate advances to a political activist, Kate Maltby, is also examining the pornography claims.
The inquiry is believed to centre on the ministerial code, which sets out the standards of conduct expected of government ministers.
The code says they are expected to demonstrate "the highest standards of propriety" and contains reference to the Nolan Principles that holders of public office should be "truthful".
A spokesperson for Mr Green said: "It would be inappropriate for Mr Green to comment on these allegations while the Cabinet Office investigation is ongoing, however, from the outset he has been very clear that he never watched or downloaded pornography on the computers seized from his office.
"He maintains his innocence of these charges and awaits the outcome of the investigation."
Labour MP Hilary Benn told Today that the evidence from Mr Lewis should be considered.
Despite being told about Mr Lewis's role examining Mr Green's computers, the Cabinet Office inquiry has not contacted him to give evidence.
The Cabinet Office declined to give an explanation for that, but it's thought its inquiry may have approached the Metropolitan Police directly for details about the computers.
The force has confirmed it is co-operating with the inquiry.
During his time on SO15, Mr Lewis worked on some of Britain's most high-profile terrorism inquiries, including the 21/7 attack on London's transport network in 2005 - when he took a lead role examining digital devices.
He also worked on Operation Miser, an investigation into Home Office leaks that began in October 2008 and resulted in Mr Green's Commons office being searched by police.
Mr Lewis's job on the investigation was to search for material relating to documents that had been disclosed without authorisation from the Home Office, on computers used by Mr Green.
'Not morally correct'
In accordance with standard police practice, Mr Lewis carried out the examination on digital copies he had made of the computers' hard drives.
When he ran a "gallery view" of images viewed on the desktop computer in Mr Green's Portcullis House office he noticed "a lot of pornography thumbnails which indicated web browsing", that he later confirmed by an examination of the computer's internet history.
The pornography was not "extreme", as some reports have suggested, and did not contain images of children or abuse, said Mr Lewis, who previously served in the Met's obscene publications unit and carried out investigations into paedophiles.
The matter was not referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision.
The former detective, who spent 25 years with the Met, said after the leaks inquiry ended he was ordered by the force to delete the data on the computer copies he had made.
"Morally and ethically I didn't think that was a correct way to continue," he said.
The officer erased the data, as instructed, but kept the copies knowing experts could retrieve the information if they had to. However, he now believes the items may have been destroyed.
When he left the force after being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, Mr Lewis said the only police notebook he took with him was the one he had used during Operation Miser.
The notebook, seen by the BBC, contains a reference to pornography.
"This one case, Operation Miser, I have never been comfortable with," he said, claiming the Parliamentary authorities should have been informed about the "extensive" time Mr Green allegedly spent looking at pornographic material.
"If a police officer does that, or anyone else, you'd be dismissed, you'd be thrown out."
The MPs' code of conduct states members should always behave with "probity and integrity, including in their use of public resources".
The pornography allegations were first alluded to by Bob Quick, a former Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, in written evidence to a Parliamentary committee in 2009.
He said the discovery of "private material" on Mr Green's office computer had "complicated" the inquiry into Home Office leaks.
In 2011, Mr Quick expanded on the matter in a draft statement for the Leveson Inquiry into press ethics, but it was removed from the final version, only to resurface last month in a Sunday Times article.
Mr Green responded to Mr Quick's assertions by accusing him of spreading "disreputable political smears", an attack that so infuriated Mr Lewis that he approached the former counter-terrorism chief to offer his support. He even thought about contacting the cabinet minister directly.
"His outright denial of that was quite amazing, followed by his criticism of Bob Quick," said Mr Lewis.
"I think he [Mr Green] should have resigned a long time ago."
Sir Paul Stephenson, Met Commissioner during the leaks investigation, told the BBC he had been briefed about the pornography in 2008 but considered it to be a "side issue".
The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has said it has no record of a referral being made.
What he does in his spare time is entirely his business.
I don't really care what he may have been spanking over --- subject to usual legality and so forth.
But as this is his HoC/work computer ....
I don't really think he has a leg to stand on does eh ?
... that said..
The pornography was not "extreme", as some reports have suggested, and did not contain images of children or abuse, said Mr Lewis, who previously served in the Met's obscene publications unit and carried out investigations into paedophiles.
The matter was not referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision.
The former detective, who spent 25 years with the Met, said after the leaks inquiry ended he was[b] ordered by the force to delete the data on the computer copies he had made.[/b] "Morally and ethically I didn't think that was a correct way to continue," he said.
The officer erased the data, as instructed, but kept the copies knowing experts could retrieve the information if they had to. However, he now believes the items may have been destroyed.
..excuse me ?
so in fact the Police aren't deleting things when ordered to and hang onto info for the future "just in case" ..?
meanwhile
Spoiler:
... guessing they don't have any UK staff working there eh ?
NEW: Sky News understands that the Government will ask to remain part of the EU’s aviation safety scheme to prevent planes from being grounded after Brexit.
A senior source told Sky News the UK's proposal will be modelled as an "offer" to the EU, given the Government calculates 40% of the technical expertise behind EASA is from the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
Finally, some actual leverage.
The Government is exploring Article 66 of EASA regulations, which establishes a clear legal route for third-party country participation.
In a future scenario where the UK is an associate member, a domestic dispute over the application of safety regulation would be under the jurisdiction of UK courts.
However, under Article 50 of the same EASA rules, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the ultimate arbiter of EASA rulings.
Norway and Switzerland have joint committees to allow that jurisdiction to operate indirectly, but it still exists.
Some Brexiteer MPs may feel that such jurisdiction oversteps or blurs the Prime Minister's much-heralded "red line" of no ECJ jurisdiction after Brexit.
But Government sources pointed out it is now "direct jurisdiction" that is ruled out once the UK leaves the EU.
This could well emerge as a model for other areas, where Theresa May's stance on the ECJ has proven difficult for industries run on a pan-European basis, which see no value in diverging from EU regulations.
It is also a possible compromise for the thorny issue of the oversight of EU citizens' rights.
Taken to an extreme, this is the basis for the "Norway model" of staying in the European Economic Area, for which the ECJ has quasi-direct jurisdiction.
Captain Mike Vivian, former head of flight operations and chief flight operations inspector at the CAA, told Sky News: "If you have an alternative system of jurisdiction... if you do that in aviation, you could of course open up different safety standards.
"That would be impossible to accede to, so you have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ, which oversees the European agency, EASA, to avoid that happening.
"I can't see there's any way out of that. It's a red line, it seems to me, the Government is going to have to cross."
The US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) believes the UK needs to settle the issue of post-Brexit aviation regulation within weeks.
Catherine Lang, the FAA's Europe Director, recently said: "It's very important that we point out that the US-EU safety agreement... when the UK exits the EU, their status in that agreement will be extinguished.
"This is wildly important to mitigate and urgently needed to be mitigated because half of the repair stations in Europe are in the UK."
Some of the big aviation players such as British Airways and Heathrow Airport have been relatively relaxed about the impact of Brexit and the chance of no deal resulting from the UK's exit negotiations.
The mutual interest for the European tourist industry and airlines is seen as guaranteeing the avoidance of a "no deal" Brexit, although they have said the UK's EASA status needs to be settled imminently.
However, smaller providers say they are seeing a divergence of business from smaller airports and less popular routes.
Robert Sinclair, the new chief executive of London City Airport, told a Sky News' Brexit Forensics special report on aviation he is "quite worried about the prospect of no deal".
"I think for critical industries like aviation, which is an enabler of other industries and trade and tourism, the consequences of 'no deal' are very, very significant," he said.
"Single market consistency has driven air fares down, which has made flying the preserve of everyone, not just the few.
"And it's made it a lot more prolific and allowed people right across Britain to experience Europe.
"Unfortunately, if we lose that, the risk is that flying becomes more the preserve of the few, like it was 30 or 40 years ago."
seems a no-brainer of a deal... but you know some one will kick off about the euro court....
CAA was so unenthused by idea of EASA exit it told govt it would simply refuse to draw up a Plan B. High-stakes insubordination.
CAA’s Andrew Haines: “we are very uncompromising in our view that we should not be planning for a new independent aviation safety system in the UK. Indeed, we have consciously decided not to do that work as it would be misleading to suggest that’s a viable option.”
*bold play image or gif*
..hmm ..
we finally see the " don't make me jump" defence in use.
Considering Heathrow is SO IMPORTANT a hub for BUSINESS and the ECONOMY that we have to have a THIRD RUNWAY, one might have thought it would be useful to stay in the airspace safety system that helps deliver thousands of flights a day in and out.
Well, speaking as a Leave voter, I have no problem with following a third party, Norway style system, on matters such as aviation, cleaning up Chernobyl etc etc
I've never had a problem with a loose trading organisation with some cooperation on the environment, security, defence etc etc
Radioactive clouds floating around tend to ignore national boundaries. Any military attack on Europe, say Russia for example, is a direct threat to the UK, simply out of geographic proximity.
So, out of naked self-interest, some cooperation with Europe is acceptable to me.
Herzlos wrote: "tens of thousands" was never going to be possible.
The more concerning thing is why immigration is down so much, and how we can control it. Is it down because of the drop in GBP? Because we're being viewed as xenophobes? Because the sectors migrants work in are being shafted?
Herzlos wrote: There does appear to be growing demand for a second referendum now that more information is being presented and the realities and lies have been exposed. I watched a few clips from channel 4 about Leave voters reactions to the 50bn, and a good third said they'd change their vote now if they could.
I think this is somewhat optimistic, as the source below shows. But it's also irrelevant. The referendum that got us into this situation had nothing to do with public demand for one, but instead internal Tory politics. If there is a second referendum it will happen for much the same reasons.
YouGov wrote:Remainers beware: people who think Britain was wrong to vote to leave the EU do not necessarily think the referendum result should be reverse
In a recent YouGov poll for The Times, there appeared to be good news for those who want Britain to remain in the European Union and bad news for those who favour Brexit.
After 16 months of tracking Bregret (or rather, thus far, the relative lack of it), a record high of 47% said they thought Britain was wrong to vote leave the EU, coupled with a record low of 42% saying we were right to do so.
Each individual poll has a margin of error so it is important not to take one set of results out of context. In our most recent poll the numbers have reverted back slightly, with just a 3% gap between right and wrong to leave. However, when you look at the last few months together the trend does seem to be towards slightly more people thinking Britain was wrong to vote to leave the EU.
The average of YouGov’s five most recent polls shows 43% saying we were right to vote to leave and 45% saying we were wrong. By contrast, on average the first five polls of this year saw 46% saying we were right to leave and 42% wrong.
But before anyone gets carried away with the possible implications of this shift, it is important to note that thinking Britain was wrong to vote to leave is not the same as thinking the referendum result should be reversed.
Some Remain voters don’t like the destination, but have strapped in for the ride
In a recent poll we asked Britons which of four different routes they would prefer the Brexit process take. Four in ten (40%) wanted to continue with Brexit on current negotiating terms, whilst 12% wanted Britain to seek a “softer” Brexit – meaning a “go ahead” majority of 52%.
Just 18% wanted a second referendum and a further 14% wanted Brexit abandoned completely, a total of 32% for an “attempt to reverse” Brexit. The remaining 16% said they didn’t know.
The main reason there are so many more people wanting Brexit to proceed rather than halted is because some Remain voters, though still thinking that leaving is the wrong decision, believe that the result of the referendum should be respected. (Previous YouGov research on this group labelled them “Re-leavers”). For example, whilst eight in ten (79%) Leave voters pick one of the “go ahead” options, so do 28% of Remain voters.
This might be changing, though.
Over the past few months, Remain voters’ views have started swinging back towards wanting Britain to stay in the EU. While in June a majority of Remain voters (51%) supported a “go ahead” option, by the end of September this had fallen to 28%. Over the same period the proportion of Remain voters backing an “attempt to reverse” approach rose from 44% to 61%.
As we get further and further away from the referendum itself more people might start to think it is legitimate to try to stop Brexit, and eventually there could be a majority that want to stop Brexit.
But for the moment the public still believe that Brexit means Brexit.
Interesting, however, that was from the end of last month. The channel 4 video concerned reaction to the Brexit bill of £50bn. I wonder how the Yougov statistics would fare now.
By rights I should be angry with that Brexit bill, but on reflection, in the grand scheme of things, and stretched over a number of years, it's loose change.
If Her Majesty's government has need of me, I'll happily drive over to Belgium and dump the suitcases full of cash at Juncker's office, myself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mario wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That, about all those rising economies. What you do think would be better for them, to make one trade deal with the EU or the UK (from a volume of transaction point of view)? What will be their priorities once they have money to spend?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Oh so warmongering is OK as long as its other people dying and not us? Might as well make a profit out of it, eh?
Witzkatz is correct, it's disapproval of the situation. I didn't want to add an emoticon, that might have looked even more like what you interpreted it, as if it's actually a smart thing to do. Germany may not be directly involved in many wars these days but our arms manufacturers are making a lot of money from all kinds of governments and groups. Those weapon then create havoc and refugees but then in turn people worry about us never being able to pay for the refugees' needs that end up here from the same warzones we indirectly helped create.
It's the same with globalisation, everybody's happy to buy cheap stuff made somewhere else (and that pollutes their lands) but when poor people safe up some money and want to emigrate to the nice places (like the USA or Europe) suddenly the effects of globalisation become really worrying. We, the developed world, like to (ab)use globalisation but act differently when others would like to do the same.
On reflection, what with global warming and melting ice caps, there may not be anybody left to strike trade deals with
Herzlos wrote: "tens of thousands" was never going to be possible.
The more concerning thing is why immigration is down so much, and how we can control it. Is it down because of the drop in GBP? Because we're being viewed as xenophobes? Because the sectors migrants work in are being shafted?
Kilkrazy wrote:The current record high employment rate argues that the UK economy is running out of labour force and needs more people not fewer.
Solution seems to involve running the economy to the ground so that foreigners aren't needed any more.
A cunning plan worthy of Blackadder.
Robots and automation, as smarter people than me have pointed out, may make the need for migrants redundant. Naturally, only time will tell.
According to smarter people than me we'd all be driving flying cars to Mars. Or alternatively we'd all be dead save for small bands of mutants scavenging for lost-era artifacts.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Paying farmers more drives inflation, as the wage increase has to come from somewhere. That leads to increased food prices, which means everyone else wants higher wage increases to cope with rising food prices and so on creating an evil circle.
The average UK home spends 11% of its income on food which puts an obvious limit on how much inflation in food prices can fuel overall inflation.
Here is UK food inflation for the last 10 years. Both sets of figures come from the Office of National Statistics.
Finally, your model is too simplistic. Considered narrowly, paying farmers more only drives inflation if their increased wages outstrips productivity growth. Considered broadly, it only drives overall inflation if it overcomes other sources of deflation.
The problem here is that you are just using averages which is a very poor way of thinking of numbers when there is a large number of them. A small number of people that spend a tiny proportion of their wages on food can skew the figures massively. The conversation is more about the impacts on the lower earners that will be spending 50% or more on food. These are the same people that will be taking on the lowest paid jobs. The millionaire won't really notice a food price increase. The person on the lowest income definitely will. They won't gain any benefit from a hike in wages simply as they will see that taken back off them in food increases. The average might be 11% but it makes no distinction on people's actual income. That's part of the problem with inflation figures - it includes things that only the wealthiest might use consistently (e.g. flight prices). If you have an inflation level based solely on 'essentials' proportional to the how often they are purchased food price increases would have a much greater impact. Inflation is massaged down at the moment but the real impacts on the lowest paid are much greater.
-----
Anyway came to a shocking Wrexit revelation with my niece today. After Wrexit there will be no Christmas because of issues with Santa.
After Wrexit, Santa is a migrant from the EEA area. Santa doesn't earn any income and hence won't be allowed through customs. He is most maligned by the a proportion of the population that see someone that is lazy and spends 99.7% of the year doing nothing other than eating Mince Pies that he has taken from hard working British people. So you heard it here first, Christmas cancelled from 2019 because of Wrexit. My niece seemed very disappointed....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Brexit spills over from the negotiating room to the football pitch with England Vs. Belgium
and we also have the Battle of the Tax Havens: England and Overseas Territories Vs. Panama
So I fully expect the England team to turn up at the game then, tell everyone they are going to a have a deep and meaningful game, play like complete idiots and then capitulating completely at the end. Sounds about right.
Whirlwind wrote: The problem here is that you are just using averages which is a very poor way of thinking of numbers when there is a large number of them. A small number of people that spend a tiny proportion of their wages on food can skew the figures massively. The conversation is more about the impacts on the lower earners that will be spending 50% or more on food. These are the same people that will be taking on the lowest paid jobs. The millionaire won't really notice a food price increase. The person on the lowest income definitely will. They won't gain any benefit from a hike in wages simply as they will see that taken back off them in food increases. The average might be 11% but it makes no distinction on people's actual income. That's part of the problem with inflation figures - it includes things that only the wealthiest might use consistently (e.g. flight prices). If you have an inflation level based solely on 'essentials' proportional to the how often they are purchased food price increases would have a much greater impact. Inflation is massaged down at the moment but the real impacts on the lowest paid are much greater.
While what you say is partially true, it wasn't relevant to the post I was replying to. I was objecting to the idea that increasing farm incomes would somehow cause an inflationary death spiral.
However, the ONS do publish information broken down by income deciles. The lowest 10% of households by income spend ~17% of their income on food, while the richest 10% spend ~8%. Food price inflation is thus roughly twice as bad for the poor as the rich.
More as an aside than anything else, having an average income of £1M a year is very roughly where you enter the top 0.1% of households in the UK.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's worth remembering that the rich buy much better quality of food than the poor. Wagyu steak instead of Goblin beefburgers, and so on.
While what you say is partially true, it wasn't relevant to the post I was replying to. I was objecting to the idea that increasing farm incomes would somehow cause an inflationary death spiral.
Well that's fair enough, but the whole conversation started on the basis that with immigration farmers would raise wages and the poorest would be better off. The argument is that food prices will go up because of increased wages and the poorest will see little or no benefit (as whatever wage rise they get will be pushed onto prices etc).
However, the ONS do publish information broken down by income deciles. The lowest 10% of households by income spend ~17% of their income on food, while the richest 10% spend ~8%. Food price inflation is thus roughly twice as bad for the poor as the rich.
Of course the thing that this doesn't show is that those on the lowest income can least afford larger increases because there is little if any head room in their pay packet. For a 'millionaire' (noting it really was an extreme example to avoid arguments of what is rich/poor) the outcome is a little less spent on luxuries/investment and so on, which in reality has a negligible quality of life impact anyway.
Also as pointed out the types of food is also important. If you are having to buy more foods with 'sawdust' in them (as in negligible nutritional value) then that is a type of inflation but a hidden one.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's worth remembering that the rich buy much better quality of food than the poor. Wagyu steak instead of Goblin beefburgers, and so on.
Or horse, as it once turned out.
It was a bit more than once....Don't worry reduced food quality standards after Wrexit will probably mean rat burgers which will be cheaper than chips...
We all obviously disagree on a lot of things, but I think we can all agree that two of the greatest tragedies of modern British politics is the politicisation of the police force, and the politicisation of the Civil Service, to the detriment of the nation.
The Tories and Labour are as bad as each other in this regard
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I fully expect the England team to turn up at the game then, tell everyone they are going to a have a deep and meaningful game, play like complete idiots and then capitulating completely at the end. Sounds about right.
@ whirlwind
Most England fans will tell you that they were doing that long before Brexit
We all obviously disagree on a lot of things, but I think we can all agree that two of the greatest tragedies of modern British politics is the politicisation of the police force, and the politicisation of the Civil Service, to the detriment of the nation.
The Tories and Labour are as bad as each other in this regard
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I fully expect the England team to turn up at the game then, tell everyone they are going to a have a deep and meaningful game, play like complete idiots and then capitulating completely at the end. Sounds about right.
@ whirlwind
Most England fans will tell you that they were doing that long before Brexit
The Green issue is absolutely deplorable and deeply concerning.
Someone is lying.
An ex-police officer leaking information from an unrelated case is troubling and should worry every right thinking person in the UK. 'Public interest' is a convenient cover now the information is out in the public domain.
We all obviously disagree on a lot of things, but I think we can all agree that two of the greatest tragedies of modern British politics is the politicisation of the police force, and the politicisation of the Civil Service, to the detriment of the nation.
The Tories and Labour are as bad as each other in this regard
For all our other disagreements I am absolutely with you on this; I was horrified to find party political candidates when they introduced the Police and Crime Commissioners. I voted for the independent candidate the first time round purely on principle, the second time round there was no independent
Whilst I’m behind civilian oversight of authorities and accountability and prioritisation being done at a local level, party politics has no place in law enforcement.
We all obviously disagree on a lot of things, but I think we can all agree that two of the greatest tragedies of modern British politics is the politicisation of the police force, and the politicisation of the Civil Service, to the detriment of the nation.
The Tories and Labour are as bad as each other in this regard
For all our other disagreements I am absolutely with you on this; I was horrified to find party political candidates when they introduced the Police and Crime Commissioners. I voted for the independent candidate the first time round purely on principle, the second time round there was no independent
Whilst I’m behind civilian oversight of authorities and accountability and prioritisation being done at a local level, party politics has no place in law enforcement.
If the police feel bold enough to take on MPs and government ministers with impunity, then God only knows what they're doing to ordinary members of the public...
The Tories have long been the party of law and order, but I've got this feeling that they're in the mood for slapping the police down over this.
We all obviously disagree on a lot of things, but I think we can all agree that two of the greatest tragedies of modern British politics is the politicisation of the police force, and the politicisation of the Civil Service, to the detriment of the nation.
The Tories and Labour are as bad as each other in this regard
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I fully expect the England team to turn up at the game then, tell everyone they are going to a have a deep and meaningful game, play like complete idiots and then capitulating completely at the end. Sounds about right.
@ whirlwind
Most England fans will tell you that they were doing that long before Brexit
The Green issue is absolutely deplorable and deeply concerning.
Someone is lying.
An ex-police officer leaking information from an unrelated case is troubling and should worry every right thinking person in the UK. 'Public interest' is a convenient cover now the information is out in the public domain.
The rot started with Tony Blair IMO, and has steadily gotten worse. MPs are obviously not above the law, nor should they ever be, but neither are the police, and in my experience, they tend to forget that.
The Tories whilst being the party of law and order have also been the party of slashing police budgets and numbers.
If MP's are doing something wrong, then I'm all for the police (or any other body) having an appropriate pop at them. Leaking details of an investigation is less acceptable, especially since he did nothing illegal.
Should we be outraged at the amount of time MP's are spending looking at porn whilst they are meant to be working? Absolutely.
We all obviously disagree on a lot of things, but I think we can all agree that two of the greatest tragedies of modern British politics is the politicisation of the police force, and the politicisation of the Civil Service, to the detriment of the nation.
The Tories and Labour are as bad as each other in this regard
For all our other disagreements I am absolutely with you on this; I was horrified to find party political candidates when they introduced the Police and Crime Commissioners. I voted for the independent candidate the first time round purely on principle, the second time round there was no independent
Whilst I’m behind civilian oversight of authorities and accountability and prioritisation being done at a local level, party politics has no place in law enforcement.
If the police feel bold enough to take on MPs and government ministers with impunity, then God only knows what they're doing to ordinary members of the public...
The Tories have long been the party of law and order, but I've got this feeling that they're in the mood for slapping the police down over this.
We all obviously disagree on a lot of things, but I think we can all agree that two of the greatest tragedies of modern British politics is the politicisation of the police force, and the politicisation of the Civil Service, to the detriment of the nation.
The Tories and Labour are as bad as each other in this regard
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I fully expect the England team to turn up at the game then, tell everyone they are going to a have a deep and meaningful game, play like complete idiots and then capitulating completely at the end. Sounds about right.
@ whirlwind
Most England fans will tell you that they were doing that long before Brexit
The Green issue is absolutely deplorable and deeply concerning.
Someone is lying.
An ex-police officer leaking information from an unrelated case is troubling and should worry every right thinking person in the UK. 'Public interest' is a convenient cover now the information is out in the public domain.
The rot started with Tony Blair IMO, and has steadily gotten worse. MPs are obviously not above the law, nor should they ever be, but neither are the police, and in my experience, they tend to forget that.
It’s not the police. It is a small number of ex officers who have been roundly condemned, both by MPs, colleagues and professional standards. This is not somedeep corruption in the police, despite what some Tory’s would have you believe.
Police targets have always seems absurd to me, crime happens and police try to catch it. Just let coppers catch villains, the good ones will always do their job with dedication, the bad ones will play any system in place anyway. The idea that good police wouldn’t catch criminals if they’re not given targets seems daft to me, but as a teacher the implication is always there that without a string of targets I won’t teach children properly. All it does is increase workload and stress on everyone. Instead of focusing on ‘good old fashioned policing’ they have to reach some arbitrary target that results in officers trying to overanalyse petty matters to get more ‘crimes detected’.
I think we all know though, that 'targets' in crime and education aren't intrinsically there to help boost performance . They're there to generate metrics which can be used by the people above you to try and a) justify their own existence/performance to their bosses, and b) give them a quantitative way of assessing your own performance which doesn't consist of throwing darts at a board. The more data you have, the more it can be manipulated for either purpose.
Agreed, there seems to be a huge amount of box ticking and data generated to satisfy senior staff in all sorts of jobs.
I spend a lot of time filling in data as a teacher, as though half of it means anything more than my gut feeling based on a few tests. When it comes to their current GCSE level we’ve always been on the cautious side, no point in making kids think they’re already teaching their target grade in October so can slack off, also if they ultimately fall short in the summer you don’t want to be making rope to hang yourself because you ‘overpredicted’. Last time the reports were made they generated even more spreadsheets listing every pupil who was currently rated below the grade they are predicted for the end of the year expecting us to make individual comments what we were doing to support each one. It’s just work for work’s sake. We also have a scheme to highlight six pupils on our register, usually those least able or SEN, as being our priorities to go to first when greeting at the door, checking work, offering help, etc. As a teacher I know who the children with greatest need are in the class are, their ability and SEN are already on the register anyway, I go to them first as standard practice, colouring them in on the register and making comments doesn’t help my practice it’s just another sink for my time.
If policing is like that no wonder they have many leaving too.
Herzlos wrote: The Tories whilst being the party of law and order have also been the party of slashing police budgets and numbers.
If MP's are doing something wrong, then I'm all for the police (or any other body) having an appropriate pop at them. Leaking details of an investigation is less acceptable, especially since he did nothing illegal.
Should we be outraged at the amount of time MP's are spending looking at porn whilst they are meant to be working? Absolutely.
There are always going to be leaks. That's what a lot of the press work to, whether that is from disgruntled employees, people thinking it is in the interest of the public to know and so on.. How likely is that an FOI would be granted of non work websites perused by an MP would be released?
For example is it in the interest of the public to know that there is significant private use of work computers? It does however show how little is changing and that once you get to a certain position people tend to turn a blind eye to actions that for the poor mortal would be fired over. Can you imagine a teacher looking at legal porn during work hours on a works computer would not be summarily told to leave? It's not just MPs though. Look at Sam Allardyce in football but still going strong and so on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Police targets have always seems absurd to me, crime happens and police try to catch it. Just let coppers catch villains, the good ones will always do their job with dedication, the bad ones will play any system in place anyway. The idea that good police wouldn’t catch criminals if they’re not given targets seems daft to me, but as a teacher the implication is always there that without a string of targets I won’t teach children properly. All it does is increase workload and stress on everyone. Instead of focusing on ‘good old fashioned policing’ they have to reach some arbitrary target that results in officers trying to overanalyse petty matters to get more ‘crimes detected’.
The way targets are implemented is poor rather than the principle. If you have performance indicators then you can use these to compare different areas to see if there are areas of 'good practice' that will allow other areas to benefit from the idea and to improve as well. Not every person, business, local authority, school can keep up to data with whatever every other one is doing and one teacher may come up with an outstanding way of improving children interaction but because the teacher is based on in outer Hebrides no one else gets to hear about it. The problem with the targets we have now is that the government condemn/praise those that meet those targets and hence things start to be prioritised to meet these targets regardless of any other considerations or whether they actually benefit.
For example a local secondary school was told that to score higher it needed to put security fencing around the site so they could guarantee they locked the children in. There wasn't any particular need, it's not like that it was next to a high speed or busy road (out of the school run anyway which makes no difference), however because to meet those targets they undertook it a significant cost that could for example been spent on employing another teacher for several years and so on.
Performance Indicators are fine when they are used correctly. This and previous governments have not used them correctly at all.
-------
I also see that the Farage is being his continuing loathsome self. He despises the idea that the UK should fund EU liabilities associated with the EU but at the same time is quite happy to take those same pensions (>£70k pa)
Finally the board that the government has put in charge of trying to help with social mobility functions has resigned on mass because of lack of any interest from Theresa May and the government (which isn't a particular surprise).
Establishment
In January 2009, it was announced that then Culture Secretary Andy Burnham was considering establishing a British City of Culture prize and that the winning city might possibly host events such as the Turner Prize, Brit Awards, Man Booker Prize and the Stirling Prize. Phil Redmond was invited to chair a panel set up to consider the proposal, with a remit including deciding how often the prize should be awarded.[2] A working group was established in March and reported in June 2009, suggesting that the designation be given to a city once every four years starting in 2013
whilst the business people apparently gave him short shrift, one wonders if there's any other political movements he might be interested in ..?
He was a guest of Scotland International Ltd, a think tank headed by Angus Grossart. Who in this article compares the press criticism of his friend ex RBS chief, Fred "the Shred" Goodwin, to Kristallnacht.
Apparently MPs thing sharing passwords is fine. And these are the people who want backdoors to WhatsApp and VPN banned...
Shouldn't happen but its out there. Happens all the time in the workplace. Know loads of directors and execs who rely on secretaries and assistants to keep track of log in details etc. not to mention regular joes who share 'password' 'admin' and 0000 on machines they operate.
I don't think we need to spin up outrage against Dorres comments. Maybe more education is needed on security.
Nigel Farage is accused of being a 'shameless hypocrite' for agreeing to take his £73,000 taxpayer-funded EU pension which could be part-paid by Britain's £50BILLION Brexit bill
OK...even I have to admit...what a fething gakker.
Yeah, but he has worked in the EU for nearly 20 years and we were contributing all that time into the pension fund. I don’t know why his pension is worth £73k a year though, no wonder the EU guzzles so much money if there’s an army of people on those sorts of pensions.
Apparently MPs thing sharing passwords is fine. And these are the people who want backdoors to WhatsApp and VPN banned...
Shouldn't happen but its out there. Happens all the time in the workplace. Know loads of directors and execs who rely on secretaries and assistants to keep track of log in details etc. not to mention regular joes who share 'password' 'admin' and 0000 on machines they operate.
I don't think we need to spin up outrage against Dorres comments. Maybe more education is needed on security.
Not on my system it doesn’t. Anyone caught doing that gets their account locked, a phone call from our internal audit and an audit of their history to see if there was anything suspicious happening. It is a finance system, but between myself and my colleague in internal audit we are quite clear, you are responsible for anything that happens on your account. Lots more education is needed. No decent sysadmin will be letting their password policy be so lax that “password” “admin” or “0000” are allowed. Any company big enough to have an IT team will have stopped that. There are many too small, but that does not include the Houses of Parliament. Education is needed, lots of it, but idiots like these MPs keep dragging us back.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Yeah, but he has worked in the EU for nearly 20 years and we were contributing all that time into the pension fund. I don’t know why his pension is worth £73k a year though, no wonder the EU guzzles so much money if there’s an army of people on those sorts of pensions.
Nigel Farage is accused of being a 'shameless hypocrite' for agreeing to take his £73,000 taxpayer-funded EU pension which could be part-paid by Britain's £50BILLION Brexit bill
OK...even I have to admit...what a fething gakker.
“Could be part paid”. That’s some weasel words by the DM. Pensions for our people is one of the liabilities the UK has.
Good point Steve, even if they’d shared the password (which is at least a disciplinary out in the real world), they are still responsible for what happens on the account, so should have been monitoring the staff with access.
And what’s this bs about needing multiple people to respond to emails; has no one in the Westminster heard of a shared inbox?!
We have one here where I work. It's easier and more reliable for sharing things on the intranet.
As for Farage getting a pension, he has worked for 20 years so he's entitled to it. After all, aren't we paying the EU money anyway for things like this?.
Farage is a man who is not easy to love. £73,000 a year is a whopping pension even after 20 years as an MEP, which duties he discharged negligently.
That said, it was up to his constituents to call him to account, and I am sure they will be pleased to contribute towards the £50Bn settlement that will enable Nigel to maintain the lifestyle to which he is accustomed.
Well, today's the day where we could have an agreement over Brexit, with the outline of a deal broadly agreed.
I'll believe it when i see it. This sham of a negotiation, this mockery, this travesty, will be dragged on a lot longer.
In the highly unlikely event a deal does happen, I'll put an EU flag in my avatar.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Farage is a man who is not easy to love. £73,000 a year is a whopping pension even after 20 years as an MEP, which duties he discharged negligently.
That said, it was up to his constituents to call him to account, and I am sure they will be pleased to contribute towards the £50Bn settlement that will enable Nigel to maintain the lifestyle to which he is accustomed.
His constituents?
This is MEP elections we're talking about. The turnout is that low, he was probably elected by two men and a dog.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Yeah, but he has worked in the EU for nearly 20 years and we were contributing all that time into the pension fund. I don’t know why his pension is worth £73k a year though, no wonder the EU guzzles so much money if there’s an army of people on those sorts of pensions.
Well said. Forget Farage's hypocrisy for a minute here. 73k a year?
No wonder they've never had their accounts signed off for years.
With such a low turnout it should have been easy to replace him with someone that actually turned up. Maybe the European Parliament should have minimum attendance requirements or something.
Auditors say the accounts have been accurate since 2007. But they have historically recorded significant errors in how money is paid since their first audit in 1995. In the most recent year, they found a significant part of the EU’s spending was largely error-free for the first time.
I'm not sure what you're implying?
Gravy train? Total understatement.
It's not vastly different to an MP's package. Mind you it is a total gravy train to take that kind of money for doing nothing for an organization you're against. But we already knew Farage was a hypocrite,
Herzlos wrote: With such a low turnout it should have been easy to replace him with someone that actually turned up. Maybe the European Parliament should have minimum attendance requirements or something.
Auditors say the accounts have been accurate since 2007. But they have historically recorded significant errors in how money is paid since their first audit in 1995. In the most recent year, they found a significant part of the EU’s spending was largely error-free for the first time.
I'm not sure what you're implying?
Gravy train? Total understatement.
It's not vastly different to an MP's package. Mind you it is a total gravy train to take that kind of money for doing nothing for an organization you're against. But we already knew Farage was a hypocrite,
Aren't roughly half of the MEPs members of Euroskeptic parties?
I mean, I'd become an MEP if the pension was good enough. Doesn't matter if I like or agree with them or not.
Problem is, the European Parliament is poorly enforced and people just don't tend to show up a lot. But they still get paid.
Farage wasn't working for the EU, he was paid by them on our behalf to be an elected representative of his constituents, even the ones who didn't bother to vote.
welshhoppo wrote: Aren't roughly half of the MEPs members of Euroskeptic parties?
Euroskeptics have as much reason to get involved as everyone else - they have ample opportunity to try and resist everything they dislike and make their concerns known.
Being a skeptic, taking a salary and ignoring the whole system is hypocritical and grossly unfair on the people you are being paid to represent.
It looks like there may be broad agreement today to recommend the 27 member states approve the talks to move into the second phase.
This means a pretty soft border in Ireland, which isn't going to make the DUP happy. However, there will be a lot more support in Parliament to get a soft Brexit kind of deal through, so the sticking point would be how badly May wants to keep the Tories in power against the broader national interest.
welshhoppo wrote: Aren't roughly half of the MEPs members of Euroskeptic parties?
Euroskeptics have as much reason to get involved as everyone else - they have ample opportunity to try and resist everything they dislike and make their concerns known.
Being a skeptic.....hypocritical and grossly unfair on the people you are being paid to represent.
So....they should get involved but not be skeptics? Not sure if I follow there.
There's been special arrangements for the Irish border for nearly 100 years in some areas, which obviously pre-dates the EU, so if hotdogs in Belfast have to follow the same food and animal welfare standards as hotdogs in Dublin, and vice versa, then I can live with that.
Unionists are happy to diverge from the rest of the uk (abortion, gay marriage and in the past, Catholic discrimination) when it suits them. They should have a little wiggle room with regards to the boarder. Or the alternative could be a boarder poll and the end of N.I altogether.
Future War Cultist wrote: Unionists are happy to diverge from the rest of the uk (abortion, gay marriage and in the past, Catholic discrimination) when it suits them. They should have a little wiggle room with regards to the boarder. Or the alternative could be a boarder poll and the end of N.I altogether.
Well now London is saying that if NI stays in the customs union they want some of the same please.
It makes sense to keep NI in the customs union because there is a long physical border which a lot of trade and commuting flows across daily, and which is onerous to patrol, as well as having implications for the peace process, (pause for breath) yet Ireland of course is a separate island to Great Britain, so the customs zone can easily be isolated and contained.
It's always been a chicken and egg situation with the Irish border. You can't really decide what the border arrangements will be like in future, until the trade side has been sorted, but you can't get to phase two until sufficient progress has been made, without dealing with the trade side of things.
If today's announcement matches the rumour, then judging by the mood music, this could be the greatest fudge in human history
The difficulty of making such decisions is simply due to the insistence on negotiation within a framework of having already ruled out a lot of the viable options.
As you say, this could be an excellent fudge, and will match the proposals I put forwards months ago.
Kilkrazy wrote: The difficulty of making such decisions is simply due to the insistence on negotiation within a framework of having already ruled out a lot of the viable options.
As you say, this could be an excellent fudge, and will match the proposals I put forwards months ago.
But caution is always needed here, because the DUP could torpedo it, and of course, some of the Maastricht rebels are still in the commons after 20 odd years.
I have visions of Redwood and Cash, on horseback, galloping through the Shires of England and invoking the spirit of Wat Tyler.
EDIT. Abort! Abort! BBC reporting no deal today. One or two outstanding issues.
Well, at least I won't have to change my avatar to an EU flag. Monty is safe for the time being.
Kilkrazy wrote: It makes sense to keep NI in the customs union because there is a long physical border which a lot of trade and commuting flows across daily, and which is onerous to patrol, as well as having implications for the peace process, (pause for breath) yet Ireland of course is a separate island to Great Britain, so the customs zone can easily be isolated and contained.
None of this applies to Scotland or London.
It doesn't, but the argument is not that it is necessary in other parts of the UK, just that if it goes that way, and can be successful implemented, then there's no legislative barrier to the same being done for another region.
welshhoppo wrote: Aren't roughly half of the MEPs members of Euroskeptic parties?
Euroskeptics have as much reason to get involved as everyone else - they have ample opportunity to try and resist everything they dislike and make their concerns known.
Being a skeptic.....hypocritical and grossly unfair on the people you are being paid to represent.
So....they should get involved but not be skeptics? Not sure if I follow there.
Well presumably skeptics believe the eu exists, because it pays their wages, but are against most of what it does. Thus they should do their job and vote against the things they don't like. Getting paid to so nothing is pointless - they are doing nothing, not getting a sat and not pushing the eu towards where they want it (a trading agreement only, I assume).
It's the equivalent of not voting in a GE because you don't like the government.
Kilkrazy wrote: It makes sense to keep NI in the customs union because there is a long physical border which a lot of trade and commuting flows across daily, and which is onerous to patrol, as well as having implications for the peace process, (pause for breath) yet Ireland of course is a separate island to Great Britain, so the customs zone can easily be isolated and contained.
None of this applies to Scotland or London.
It doesn't, but the argument is not that it is necessary in other parts of the UK, just that if it goes that way, and can be successful implemented, then there's no legislative barrier to the same being done for another region.
You can go from Scotland to mainland Europe without touching England, and if NI gets a deal that doesn't stuff it's trade there's no reason Scotland can't.
London on the other hand, would rely on a customs corridor of counties with an opt out.
But to be fair; if anyone manages to stay in the customs union everyone else will want the same and why not?
Howard A Treesong wrote: Yeah, but he has worked in the EU for nearly 20 years and we were contributing all that time into the pension fund. I don’t know why his pension is worth £73k a year though, no wonder the EU guzzles so much money if there’s an army of people on those sorts of pensions.
Worked is a relative term.
You really want to open that can of worms? Like the expenses scandal, gak hits people of all parties and everyone gets embarrassed which is why no one brings the matter up.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Yeah, but he has worked in the EU for nearly 20 years and we were contributing all that time into the pension fund. I don’t know why his pension is worth £73k a year though, no wonder the EU guzzles so much money if there’s an army of people on those sorts of pensions.
Worked is a relative term.
You really want to open that can of worms? Like the expenses scandal, gak hits people of all parties and everyone gets embarrassed which is why no one brings the matter up.
Everyone should be embarrassed if they are taking taxpayer money and not doing their job in return
You can go from Scotland to mainland Europe without touching England, and if NI gets a deal that doesn't stuff it's trade there's no reason Scotland can't.
Having a separate agreement for NI would also play right into SNP hands. Scotland voted in greater numbers to remain than NI did.
London on the other hand, would rely on a customs corridor of counties with an opt out.
You could have a SE border thought. Maybe a better way would be have a border on each electorate area then everyone is happy. Even more reasonably, we could split the UK. You could have two new countries "INUK" and "OUTUK" each working towards their own respective futures.
Of course May is now likely completely stuffed. Who would have thought that joining forces with a group of hard line right wing politicians would not then play a hard line?
It doesn't appear she had much room to manoeuvre. Either
a) Accepts different conditions for NI, the Tory/DUP agreement collapses forcing a new election. Given current polls Tories will be out
b) Holds to the DUP position which means no deal with the EU, hard Brexit and wrecked economy (and Tories will probably be out by 2022 but will continue to have a support of the hard right voters)
c) Agrees to Open borders and open trade, the proportion of the population that are anti-immigration would then swing back to UKIP or whoever is the hard right anyone not British party (and Tories will probably be out at the next election)
So it really depends on whether she actually cares about the Country or cares about the party...bets please.....
To be fair, this does highlight my biggest grind with the EU, that you can't deal with a single country and you have to deal with all 27. It would make it so much easier if we dealt with just the Irish. And made the "hard border" the Irish Sea.
It's a fething shambles, and the tragedy for this Brexit supporter is that it's a self-inflicted shambles from a PM who is completely and utterly out of her depth.
Had May not called a snap GE, she'd be able to tell the DUP to go whistle.
Months ago, Ketara reckoned that Bojo's appointment as FS was a smart move...
No offence, Ketara, but in hindsight, it's turned out to be as useful as buying a return ticket for the Titanic!
A competent FS, and not a complete buffoon, might have been able to prise open and exploit some cracks in the EU 27's position, or at the very least, smoothed some ruffled feathers and got us something, anything.
Feth me with a fishfork!
We may have to go crawling back to EFTA/EEA cap in hand, do a salvage job for a couple of years, and regroup from a position of strength i.e when anybody but May is PM.
This is the conclusion I'm slowly coming round to.
To be fair, this does highlight my biggest grind with the EU, that you can't deal with a single country and you have to deal with all 27. It would make it so much easier if we dealt with just the Irish. And made the "hard border" the Irish Sea.
Erh, that's the point of the EU. They act together as one whole and hence they get a better deal for everyone which includes trade deals, environmental issues and...er...agreements with countries that think they are bigger than they really are.
You are probably right, Ireland outside the EU would have had to capitulate and probably feel like they had been dragged through a bush backwards. The difference now is that we are on the other end, not within the EU benefiting from that strength in position.
I actually think May is playing a very difficult hand pretty well, in terms of Brexit, anyway -- she's made a number of mistakes in other areas but to a great degree these are being forced by the Brexit debacle. (e.g. Trump's state visit.)
May's fundamental problem is that the promise of a smooth hard Brexit is a massive mountain of magical muck, and the Conservative Party will achieve critical mass and detonate itself almost whatever she does.
This problem will not go away as long as we have a Conservative government.
Kilkrazy wrote: It makes sense to keep NI in the customs union because there is a long physical border which a lot of trade and commuting flows across daily, and which is onerous to patrol, as well as having implications for the peace process, (pause for breath) yet Ireland of course is a separate island to Great Britain, so the customs zone can easily be isolated and contained.
None of this applies to Scotland or London.
It doesn't, but the argument is not that it is necessary in other parts of the UK, just that if it goes that way, and can be successful implemented, then there's no legislative barrier to the same being done for another region.
It's not about legislation, it's about practicality. It clearly would be insane to put a hard border around London, with its millions of movements per day, in order to preserve a soft border in Ireland. with its 100,000 movements per day. Equally insane to put a hard border between Scotland and England for the same purpose and same reason.
Ireland, though, is a completely separate island. Its connections with Great Britain obviously are much more restricted.
We may have to go crawling back to EFTA/EEA cap in hand, do a salvage job for a couple of years, and regroup from a position of strength i.e when anybody but May is PM.
This is the conclusion I'm slowly coming round to.
Wait DINLT wants to stay in the EU for even just a short period of extra time....(needs sound on)
So what actually changed? You've only told us stuff we've been telling you for months.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'd be all for a hard border between England and Scotland to get priority access to Europe. We'd be able to steal so much to of their economy.
And the EU would be willing to let the UK stay for a few years until you get your gak together (somehow, without listening to EXPERTS ) out of sheer generosity and goodwill?
So what actually changed? You've only told us stuff we've been telling you for months.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'd be all for a hard border between England and Scotland to get priority access to Europe. We'd be able to steal so much to of their economy.
I retract my earlier comments. I've lurched back to wild optimism again. A week is a long time in politics, anything can happen etc etc
On a serious note, I know I'm not perfect, and yeah, I've been shot down in flames before, but I've always seen myself as a man of principal, even if people disagree with my viewpoints.
I've been anti-EU years, and for better or for worse, I've hitched my wagon to Brexit. I shall support my position come what may. To do otherewise would be hypocrisy of the highest order.
If the ship goes down, then so be it. I'll take the slings and arrows from Remain supporters on these threads.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've been anti-EU years, and for better or for worse, I've hitched my wagon to Brexit. I shall support my position come what may. To do otherewise would be hypocrisy of the highest order.
That's what I expected - no matter what happens you'll stick to Brexit. I'd respect you a whole lot more if you were still backing Brexit because you believe it to be the correct thing, and were willing to consider that you may have been wrong, even if you decide you aren't.
There's nothing righteous about stubbornly sticking to something you think is a bad idea purely so someone on the internet doesn't think you're a hypocrite. if you can't see the other side, is it even worth trying to engage in debate?
I'd like to think that I admit to being wrong where it's been pointed out, and I'm sure I've apologised for it on this very thread.
For better or worse, we're all hitched to the wagon of Brexit. I just hope someone can find a way to make it work; because in all honesty I really don't want to have to move to Germany.
For better or worse, we're all hitched to the wagon of Brexit. I just hope someone can find a way to make it work; because in all honesty I really don't want to have to move to Germany.
It'll work out one way or another. I'm poking around the politics of 1885 right now, and it makes our domestic politics look easy. They had three changes of government in the space of 18 months and people like Bismarck to deal with.
Erh, that's the point of the EU. They act together as one whole and hence they get a better deal for everyone which includes trade deals, environmental issues and...er...agreements with countries that think they are bigger than they really are.
Dear God Thank You! This is something that has been driving me nuts. When Brexiteers say things like "The EU just want to bully and punish us, whilst only thinking about themselves!"... YES! They do, that's the whole point! Being in the EU means that we all benefit from being able to throw our collective weight about. Do you think the US, China, Russia, Brazil etc give a hoot about being Mr Nice at the negotiating table? Being within the EU allows all the EU countries to have each others back and collectively bargain. Breaking away from it is doing to leave the UK incredibly vulnerable.
Herzlos wrote: I'd respect you a whole lot more if you were still backing Brexit because you believe it to be the correct thing, and were willing to consider that you may have been wrong, even if you decide you aren't.
That depends on the the metric you use to judge what is correct, and what your priorities are.
I think Brexit is "Correct" because I do not desire my country to be absorbed into a United States of Europe, something which I consider to be a pretty blatant endgame for the European Project. I accept that this may result in a short or even medium term economic cost. Essentially, I prioritize long term national sovereignty and independence over economic prosperity.
You have opposite priorities.
Clearly we have different views on what is "Correct".
For better or worse, we're all hitched to the wagon of Brexit. I just hope someone can find a way to make it work; because in all honesty I really don't want to have to move to Germany.
It'll work out one way or another. I'm poking around the politics of 1885 right now, and it makes our domestic politics look easy. They had three changes of government in the space of 18 months and people like Bismarck to deal with.
You are right of course - things won't be so bad, and we'll eventually recover. The questions I'm asking are 1. How bad will the actually get? 2. Will they have recovered by the time my kids leave school? 3. How do their prospects here compare with their prospects on mainland EU?
I'd be interested to know why you felt being apart of the EU with veto power, a seat around the table, elected MEP's etc jeopardized Britain's national sovereignty in anyway.
(Apart from meaningless, abstract Daily Mail soundbites like 'United States of Europe' obviously)
Hollow wrote: I'd be interested to know why you felt being apart of the EU with veto power, a seat around the table, elected MEP's etc jeopardized Britain's national sovereignty in anyway.
(Apart from meaningless, abstract Daily Mail soundbites like 'United States of Europe' obviously)
Because power will be centralized over time, and our powers of veto and our influence will be gradually eroded.
I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.
Erh, that's the point of the EU. They act together as one whole and hence they get a better deal for everyone which includes trade deals, environmental issues and...er...agreements with countries that think they are bigger than they really are.
Dear God Thank You! This is something that has been driving me nuts. When Brexiteers say things like "The EU just want to bully and punish us, whilst only thinking about themselves!"... YES! They do, that's the whole point! Being in the EU means that we all benefit from being able to throw our collective weight about. Do you think the US, China, Russia, Brazil etc give a hoot about being Mr Nice at the negotiating table? Being within the EU allows all the EU countries to have each others back and collectively bargain. Breaking away from it is doing to leave the UK incredibly vulnerable.
Whereas people like me view that as unwieldy and far more difficult than it should be.
The trade deal with Canada took a decade to work out. That's hundreds of thousands of man hours to work out a bloody trade deal.
Also, the idea that they have each others back doesn't always work out, and the larger nations just barge out the smaller ones. The whole agricultural model of the EU basically favours the French over everyone else.
Future War Cultist wrote: I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.
Presumably we'd still have a veto over dropping the veto?
Though I can see their point; too many members with a veto and nothing will get done. Needing an actual majority achieves similar but with a bit less power to individual states.
Future War Cultist wrote: I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.
Presumably we'd still have a veto over dropping the veto?
Though I can see their point; too many members with a veto and nothing will get done. Needing an actual majority achieves similar but with a bit less power to individual states.
Which is what people like me don't want happening.
I refuse to hand over sovereignty of own nation completely to an outside party.
If the EU actually wants this whole thing to work, they'd have to break down each of the nation's and reform them into states of the EU of a similar size in order to work, that is probably the only way to balance it out.
Future War Cultist wrote: I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.
Presumably we'd still have a veto over dropping the veto?
Though I can see their point; too many members with a veto and nothing will get done. Needing an actual majority achieves similar but with a bit less power to individual states.
And yet in this very thread you supporters of the eu said we’d never be forced to do anything we didn’t want to. Take away that veto and that’s no longer the case.
One day x will happen and it'll be the end of the world. Ok, let's say your predictive powers are of prophetic calibre. We were able to veto proposed legislation, including legislation to repeal the veto, and failing all else, we'd retain the ability to leave as and when such an issue was proposed. Article 50 is being repealed on Friday? Enact it on Thursday. You know how we had the ability to do this? Because Westminster hasn't actually forfeited its sovereignty. So if that end of the world x happened, we wouldn't be bound to it.
It's fair enough if you think all decisions should be made at Westminster, or have whatever problems with the structures and objectives of the EU, or even fear that Westminster would actually give away its sovereignty without consulting the public, but I'd suggest that anyone voting leave because they thought the UK would be coerced into an irrevocable legislative bind didn't fully understand how the system works.
nfe wrote: One day x will happen and it'll be the end of the world. Ok, let's say your predictive powers are of prophetic calibre. We were able to veto proposed legislation, including legislation to repeal the veto, and failing all else, we'd retain the ability to leave as and when such an issue was proposed. Article 50 is being repealed on Friday? Enact it on Thursday. You know how we had the ability to do this? Because Westminster hasn't actually forfeited its sovereignty. So if that end of the world x happened, we wouldn't be bound to it.
It's fair enough if you think all decisions should be made at Westminster, or have whatever problems with the structures and objectives of the EU, or even fear that Westminster would actually give away its sovereignty without consulting the public, but I'd suggest that anyone voting leave because they thought the UK would be coerced into an irrevocable legislative bind didn't fully understand how the system works.
We didn't veto the European Constitution. a.k.a. the Lisbon Treaty.
Yeah, Gordon Brown the unelected PM decided to make that decision for us. I talked about this before. Though I do think that even if he did refuse to sign it they would have went ahead with it anyway. To quote Drunker on France's response to the EU constitution, a.k.a, the Lisbon Treaty:
“If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”
How is Britain's politicians being incompetent the EU's fault, though? Further, how is leaving the EU going to help? The root cause, the fact that you have a complete clusterfeth of a political system, isn't going to go away.
And we've been through the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty already, when you posted what can charitably be described as factually incorrect nonsense and what could less charitably be called calculated desinformation.
nfe wrote: One day x will happen and it'll be the end of the world. Ok, let's say your predictive powers are of prophetic calibre. We were able to veto proposed legislation, including legislation to repeal the veto, and failing all else, we'd retain the ability to leave as and when such an issue was proposed. Article 50 is being repealed on Friday? Enact it on Thursday. You know how we had the ability to do this? Because Westminster hasn't actually forfeited its sovereignty. So if that end of the world x happened, we wouldn't be bound to it.
It's fair enough if you think all decisions should be made at Westminster, or have whatever problems with the structures and objectives of the EU, or even fear that Westminster would actually give away its sovereignty without consulting the public, but I'd suggest that anyone voting leave because they thought the UK would be coerced into an irrevocable legislative bind didn't fully understand how the system works.
We didn't veto the European Constitution. a.k.a. the Lisbon Treaty.
And? As I said, if you think our government would make decisions you disagree with that's a perfectly valid issue to raise, but pretending their ability to make them was going to be forcibly removed is nonsense.
I do understand it. Labour won the GE in 2005 on a reduced majority under Tony Blair. He steps down two years later and Gordon takes over. The public have no say on that. Another two years later, and with that government even more unpopular, Gordon decides to sign us up to this big sweeping treaty that once signed up to cannot be backed out of. He should have had the balls to call a GE first before doing that, running under a mandate of 'vote for me to vote for this treaty'. He would have had a mandate to do it in then. At least May had a referendum result and a GE to her name. No wonder he didn't want any photos taken...
I forgot, it was a labour manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on that, and he dumped it. I know a lot of the blame rests on his shoulders but it perfectly demonstrates how the EU only needs to persuade a few people to get what it wants.
I see what you're trying to pull. Ok then, the PM who never won a general election decided to sign us up to the Lisbon Treaty.
Trying to pull? Aye mate, pointing out that someone is deliberately misrepresenting the Westminster electoral system to try and invalidate a politician they dislike is downright underhanded.
Now that you've conceded that, though, the point you make is not a criticism of the EU. It's a criticism of a British government making a decision that you believe should have been given to the public. As I stated above, twice, that's perfectly fair, but it is absolutely not evidence of a government losing its ability to make decisions, nor of a threat that the EU is Going to forcibly create such a situation.
More delightful news from the string and stable party. The anti abortion, climate change denying, bigoted mates of May are now holding up the Brexit talks. What a cluster of a party this is.
I'm obviously delighted that the poisonous Tories are getting what they deserve after getting into bed with gay hating religious nutjobs. But it's not great for brexit and is already being used as a stick beat the Scottish national drum.
As Scottish independence is the key to me keeping a European passport I'd be delighted...
Future War Cultist wrote: I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.
Presumably we'd still have a veto over dropping the veto?
Though I can see their point; too many members with a veto and nothing will get done. Needing an actual majority achieves similar but with a bit less power to individual states.
And yet in this very thread you supporters of the eu said we’d never be forced to do anything we didn’t want to. Take away that veto and that’s no longer the case.
And we won't, unless we choose to give up our veto in some hypothetical future.
Do you have any basis for that or just anti-eu paranoia?
For that to be an issue we'd either need to agree (veto) or we'd need to give up our veto (voluntarily or brexit) and then a qualified majority would need to agree to scrap A50.
Erh, that's the point of the EU. They act together as one whole and hence they get a better deal for everyone which includes trade deals, environmental issues and...er...agreements with countries that think they are bigger than they really are.
Dear God Thank You! This is something that has been driving me nuts. When Brexiteers say things like "The EU just want to bully and punish us, whilst only thinking about themselves!"... YES! They do, that's the whole point! Being in the EU means that we all benefit from being able to throw our collective weight about. Do you think the US, China, Russia, Brazil etc give a hoot about being Mr Nice at the negotiating table? Being within the EU allows all the EU countries to have each others back and collectively bargain. Breaking away from it is doing to leave the UK incredibly vulnerable.
Whereas people like me view that as unwieldy and far more difficult than it should be.
The trade deal with Canada took a decade to work out. That's hundreds of thousands of man hours to work out a bloody trade deal.
Also, the idea that they have each others back doesn't always work out, and the larger nations just barge out the smaller ones. The whole agricultural model of the EU basically favours the French over everyone else.
How much of a mess do you think the Canada deal would be if they had to negotiate with all 28 members individually?
Future War Cultist wrote: I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.
Presumably we'd still have a veto over dropping the veto?
Though I can see their point; too many members with a veto and nothing will get done. Needing an actual majority achieves similar but with a bit less power to individual states.
You just know that should a UK government be of the mind to drop the veto in return for some short term gains, the public wouldn’t have a referendum offered to them on it. Just like they haven’t put referenda to us for pretty much anything they sign at the EU. No wonder many voters seized their one opportunity with both hands when it was actually offered. A shame that the only choice we’ve ever really been given control over is in or out, and not more over time that allow a more moderate position to evolve.
welshhoppo wrote: Probably far less of a mess if I'm honest. Canada could do its trade on a country by country basis.
Would they want different terms for each country? That could turn into a logistical nightmare.
It's probably still a bit easier, but we always see the Canada deal rolled out to show the EU in a bad light, comparing the performance of negotiating for 28 countries vs 1. It's not like for like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.
You can apply that to everything though. It's also how a representative democracy is supposed to work. Don't like it? Get a government with a spine or a heart.
You just know that should a UK government be of the mind to drop the veto in return for some short term gains, the public wouldn’t have a referendum offered to them on it. Just like they haven’t put referenda to us for pretty much anything they sign at the EU. No wonder many voters seized their one opportunity with both hands when it was actually offered. A shame that the only choice we’ve ever really been given control over is in or out, and not more over time that allow a more moderate position to evolve.
welshhoppo wrote: Probably far less of a mess if I'm honest. Canada could do its trade on a country by country basis.
Would they want different terms for each country? That could turn into a logistical nightmare.
It's probably still a bit easier, but we always see the Canada deal rolled out to show the EU in a bad light, comparing the performance of negotiating for 28 countries vs 1. It's not like for like.
Like for like would be for example the Canada - South Korea FTA which took nine years to negotiate. The Indians are already on record saying their deal will take over we a decade and will come with many strings attached re: immigration.
But of course every country is aching to sign whatever deal the UK pushes in front of them, because we're so cool and empire 2.0
Herzlos wrote: For better or worse, we're all hitched to the wagon of Brexit. I just hope someone can find a way to make it work; because in all honesty I really don't want to have to move to Germany.
Hey weather's better there! No week long non-stop rain to worry about.
Future War Cultist wrote: I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.
Presumably we'd still have a veto over dropping the veto?
Though I can see their point; too many members with a veto and nothing will get done. Needing an actual majority achieves similar but with a bit less power to individual states.
You just know that should a UK government be of the mind to drop the veto in return for some short term gains, the public wouldn’t have a referendum offered to them on it. Just like they haven’t put referenda to us for pretty much anything they sign at the EU. No wonder many voters seized their one opportunity with both hands when it was actually offered. A shame that the only choice we’ve ever really been given control over is in or out, and not more over time that allow a more moderate position to evolve.
I don't think the EU wants member nations not to have a veto. Despite what some Brexiteers keep saying, the EU is a democratic organisation that proceeds by forming consensus and thereby allows disagreeement.
If we want not to have a veto we can join EFTA the same as Iceland and Norway.
We have a representative democracy because government by referendum is stupid and unworkable.
Calling all those complaining that their party is not on @BBCr4today today : the DUP, Tory & Labour press offices asked their spokespeople not to appear
Kilkrazy wrote: The obvious solution is for the whole UK to remain within the customs union.
No question, but Brexit policy is being dictated by people with the perspective that DINLT was setting out yesterday: even were Brexit to become an unquestionably negative process in their own view, they'd stick to their guns rather than back down.
Well according to that map the borders obviously don't care about what the UK gov gets up to or they would have voted for a party who actually takes their seats :p
Hollow wrote: I'd be interested to know why you felt being apart of the EU with veto power, a seat around the table, elected MEP's etc jeopardized Britain's national sovereignty in anyway.
(Apart from meaningless, abstract Daily Mail soundbites like 'United States of Europe' obviously)
Because power will be centralized over time, and our powers of veto and our influence will be gradually eroded.
So nothing then... except for your irrational, unsubstantiated, fear of something neither proven or shown. Makes sense. The fear of something that doesn't exist. Typical Brexiteer. Remember to lock your doors buddy.
I don't think that line of reasoning advances the situation. The borders counties are UK citizens and have the right to elect whatever candidates they want, even if they elect the awkward squad.
They also have a devolved parliament in Stormont (currently suspended) and voted in the EU referendum (and presumably still have an MEP.)
So there is lots of democracy and their views should be taken into account the same as everyone else.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think that line of reasoning advances the situation. The borders counties are UK citizens and have the right to elect whatever candidates they want, even if they elect the awkward squad.
They also have a devolved parliament in Stormont (currently suspended) and voted in the EU referendum (and presumably still have an MEP.)
So there is lots of democracy and their views should be taken into account the same as everyone else.
I was being sarcastic. Hence the tounge. But yes, they have the right to vote for anyone they see fit. And are Probably happier with the devolved government once it starts up again.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Because power will be centralized over time, and our powers of veto and our influence will be gradually eroded.
The United Kingdom is one of the most centralised states in the Western world, and has no formal mechanism whereby a member nation may leave the union. Yet in the last hundred years:
- the Republic of Ireland has seceded after a violent conflict
- Northern Ireland has remained a part of the union despite a lower level violent conflict
- Scotland has had two peaceful independence referenda, each time voting to remain in the union
- ongoing campaigns for Independence for Wales and Cornwall which have never achieved sufficient popularity to require a referendum, but have not been suppressed.
- the UK has agreed an international treaty (the Good Friday Agreement) whereby dual referenda may transfer Northern Ireland to the Republic
Your theory of the inevitably of the veto being eroded and the members of the EU losing the ability to leave seems quixotic based on relatively recent UK history.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've been anti-EU years, and for better or for worse, I've hitched my wagon to Brexit. I shall support my position come what may. To do otherewise would be hypocrisy of the highest order.
That's what I expected - no matter what happens you'll stick to Brexit. I'd respect you a whole lot more if you were still backing Brexit because you believe it to be the correct thing, and were willing to consider that you may have been wrong, even if you decide you aren't.
There's nothing righteous about stubbornly sticking to something you think is a bad idea purely so someone on the internet doesn't think you're a hypocrite. if you can't see the other side, is it even worth trying to engage in debate?
I'd like to think that I admit to being wrong where it's been pointed out, and I'm sure I've apologised for it on this very thread.
For better or worse, we're all hitched to the wagon of Brexit. I just hope someone can find a way to make it work; because in all honesty I really don't want to have to move to Germany.
I've been to Germany a few times - nice place, and living there wouldn't be a death sentence.
As for Brexit, let me make myself clear: I still support it. Damn right I do!
Just because we have a party that couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard in government, doesn't make it a bad idea.
The idea is good, the execution is sadly, not going as it should.
Forget Ireland here for a minute, the media are reporting that citizens' rights are still an issue, because of the EU's Kamikaze insistence that the ECJ have a role...
Feth that! It would totally defeat the purpose of Brexit.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I shall support my position come what may. To do otherewise would be hypocrisy of the highest order.
Another word for what you're doing is "fanaticism", or "zealotry". You just admitted yourself that nothing can make you change your mind.
Changing your mind over new evidence is not hypocrisy, it's what reasonable people do all the time.
I've yet to see you backtrack on anything regarding the EU and its actions. Fanaticism is a strong word, but if we are to use it, then it could equally be applied to the Remain side as well.
Erh, that's the point of the EU. They act together as one whole and hence they get a better deal for everyone which includes trade deals, environmental issues and...er...agreements with countries that think they are bigger than they really are.
Dear God Thank You! This is something that has been driving me nuts. When Brexiteers say things like "The EU just want to bully and punish us, whilst only thinking about themselves!"... YES! They do, that's the whole point! Being in the EU means that we all benefit from being able to throw our collective weight about. Do you think the US, China, Russia, Brazil etc give a hoot about being Mr Nice at the negotiating table? Being within the EU allows all the EU countries to have each others back and collectively bargain. Breaking away from it is doing to leave the UK incredibly vulnerable.
Surprisingly, I agree with this, which is why I want the UK to play hardball as well. But when you've got a Remain supporting PM leading the charge, who's heart is clearly not in it, this is what you get.
Future War Cultist wrote: I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.
Presumably we'd still have a veto over dropping the veto?
Though I can see their point; too many members with a veto and nothing will get done. Needing an actual majority achieves similar but with a bit less power to individual states.
You just know that should a UK government be of the mind to drop the veto in return for some short term gains, the public wouldn’t have a referendum offered to them on it. Just like they haven’t put referenda to us for pretty much anything they sign at the EU. No wonder many voters seized their one opportunity with both hands when it was actually offered. A shame that the only choice we’ve ever really been given control over is in or out, and not more over time that allow a more moderate position to evolve.
I don't think the EU wants member nations not to have a veto. Despite what some Brexiteers keep saying, the EU is a democratic organisation that proceeds by forming consensus and thereby allows disagreeement.
If we want not to have a veto we can join EFTA the same as Iceland and Norway.
We have a representative democracy because government by referendum is stupid and unworkable.
Naturally, I disagree. If the referendum did one good thing, it highlighted the gap between the chatterinc lasses and the political elite, and the rest of Britain.
How can you have representative democracy when the majority of politicians and the civil service believe in the EU body and soul, whilst the rest of the country believes in Brexit?
If we had a Conservative party that was truly Conservative, and a Labour party that was socialist, instead of the poison of Blairism that has infected , then we might have a proper representative democracy.
I've been to Germany a few times - nice place, and living there wouldn't be a death sentence.
Me too. I'd just rather stay in Scotland.
As for Brexit, let me make myself clear: I still support it. Damn right I do!
Yeah you made that clear. Why though?
Just because we have a party that couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard in government, doesn't make it a bad idea.
It really does. But we've been over that before. Execution is linked to ideas - it may be a good idea in theory, but with an incompetent wielding the hammer it's a bad idea. Would Brexit have been a good idea with a competent government? Definitely. Is it a good idea with this gakshow? No chance.
The idea is good, the execution is sadly, not going as it should.
Just like we warned you. Very few people on the Remain side are surprised by how anything has gone; it's so painfully obvious.
Surprisingly, I agree with this, which is why I want the UK to play hardball as well. But when you've got a Remain supporting PM leading the charge, who's heart is clearly not in it, this is what you get.
I actually agree here, sort of. It's hard to believe that May wants a Brexit, but it's also hard to play hardball without a ball or bat.
If the referendum did one good thing, it highlighted the gap between the chatterinc lasses and the political elite, and the rest of Britain.
Yet nothing will change because we've voted to give the political elite even more power. That board about social equality/mobility resigning because it's pointless is a good example of it.
How can you have representative democracy when the majority of politicians and the civil service believe in the EU body and soul, whilst the rest of the country believes in Brexit?
When just under 52% voted for it (not the rest of the country), a representative democracy would have about 52% of the politicians representing those 52%. We have some Brexiteers in the cabinet and they are even less capable than May. A narrow majority for a thing doesn't mean a government that's 100% behind that thing, especially when said thing is to collosally stupid and vague.
And there's growing evidence that now Leave's lies are exposed, a significant number of that 52% of those that bothered to vote are in favour of changing said vote.
That's nowhere near the same as 'the rest of the country'.
And there's growing evidence that now Leave's lies are exposed, a significant number of that 52% of those that bothered to vote are in favour of changing said vote.
Is there? So far, what I've seen (including what has been linked to thus far by both sides in this thread), few people have changed their minds one way or t'other. I've seen polls indicating a 5% change to leave, and also a 5% change to remain (often in the same month). The polls usually seem to indicate more people switching to 'Leave' up North, and more switching to 'Remain' down south.
Either way, it's hardly 'significant'. Just people flipflapping depending on their newspaper headline that week.
I agree with Ketara on this point about supposed reneging Leavers. There is no real evidence of a swing either way.
That said, everything is still in too much of a state of flux for people to really see what they might want to react to. Just look at yesterday's events which concern nothing more than the NI border situation. Reflect that the "divorce bill" also is not yet resolved, or the details of EU citizens rights, and all this is before we've even started the main body of negotiation.
When the terms of the final deal are settled, it would not be unreasonable to refer them to the country for ratification by referendum, then a vote in parliament to make them law.
And there's growing evidence that now Leave's lies are exposed, a significant number of that 52% of those that bothered to vote are in favour of changing said vote.
Is there? So far, what I've seen (including what has been linked to thus far by both sides in this thread), few people have changed their minds one way or t'other. I've seen polls indicating a 5% change to leave, and also a 5% change to remain (often in the same month). The polls usually seem to indicate more people switching to 'Leave' up North, and more switching to 'Remain' down south.
Either way, it's hardly 'significant'. Just people flipflapping depending on their newspaper headline that week.
It takes shift of less than two percentage points moving from leave to remain to change the result, though.
As it's been repeated often, the result was so thin as to fall within margin of error.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I shall support my position come what may. To do otherewise would be hypocrisy of the highest order.
Another word for what you're doing is "fanaticism", or "zealotry". You just admitted yourself that nothing can make you change your mind.
Changing your mind over new evidence is not hypocrisy, it's what reasonable people do all the time.
I've yet to see you backtrack on anything regarding the EU and its actions. Fanaticism is a strong word, but if we are to use it, then it could equally be applied to the Remain side as well.
That's a tu qoque, whether I've changed my mind on anything the EU has done or not is entirely irrelevant when we're discussiong YOUR statements. Stop trying to change the focus. Regardless of what anyone else may or may not have done, the fact remains that your statement above consists of a rejection of basic sanity.
To illustrate; if God Himself descended from on high tomorrow and said that Brexit was a bad idea, your statement would prevent you from changing your mind in the face of new evidence (in this case, God with a capital G). That's utterly irrational. Changing your opinion when presented with new or changed evidence is the basis of our entire scientific understanding, and you've just explicitly rejected it.
nfe wrote: Trying to pull? Aye mate, pointing out that someone is deliberately misrepresenting the Westminster electoral system to try and invalidate a politician they dislike is downright underhanded.
Now that you've conceded that, though, the point you make is not a criticism of the EU. It's a criticism of a British government making a decision that you believe should have been given to the public. As I stated above, twice, that's perfectly fair, but it is absolutely not evidence of a government losing its ability to make decisions, nor of a threat that the EU is Going to forcibly create such a situation.
First of all, don't call me mate.
Second of all, it's true that we don't directly elect the PM. I concede that. However, we at least have a say on the matter via general elections. Gordon Brown never won a GE, and he was four years into a term as part of a governing party that was in power for 12 years and had worn out everyone's patience, so he really shouldn't have been signing us up to something as big as the Lisbon Treaty. That was the point I was trying to make.
And now that we are signed up to it, we can never go back on it except by leaving the EU altogether. And for me this is a criticism of the EU, because it perfectly demonstrates how it isn't answerable to ordinary voters. Instead, it only has to butter up a few people in high places to get what it wants. It's designed in such a way as to be a playground for politicians and bureaucrats to make their plans without having to worry about the voters.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I shall support my position come what may. To do otherewise would be hypocrisy of the highest order.
Another word for what you're doing is "fanaticism", or "zealotry". You just admitted yourself that nothing can make you change your mind.
Changing your mind over new evidence is not hypocrisy, it's what reasonable people do all the time.
I've yet to see you backtrack on anything regarding the EU and its actions. Fanaticism is a strong word, but if we are to use it, then it could equally be applied to the Remain side as well.
That's a tu qoque, whether I've changed my mind on anything the EU has done or not is entirely irrelevant when we're discussiong YOUR statements. Stop trying to change the focus. Regardless of what anyone else may or may not have done, the fact remains that your statement above consists of a rejection of basic sanity.
To illustrate; if God Himself descended from on high tomorrow and said that Brexit was a bad idea, your statement would prevent you from changing your mind in the face of new evidence (in this case, God with a capital G). That's utterly irrational. Changing your opinion when presented with new or changed evidence is the basis of our entire scientific understanding, and you've just explicitly rejected it.
Careful, the last time God got in the way of a Scotsman, he sued him.
I'd say it's a far harsher indictment of your own political system than the EU. You have a choice of the politicians you elect to represent you, after all.
Howard A Treesong wrote: You just know that should a UK government be of the mind to drop the veto in return for some short term gains, the public wouldn’t have a referendum offered to them on it. Just like they haven’t put referenda to us for pretty much anything they sign at the EU. No wonder many voters seized their one opportunity with both hands when it was actually offered. A shame that the only choice we’ve ever really been given control over is in or out, and not more over time that allow a more moderate position to evolve.
Yep. Like how Blair gave up a chunk of the rebate in return for CAP 'concessions'. Again, the EU only needs to get to one person (the PM) to get their way. That is completely unacceptable.
Yep. Like how Blair gave up a chunk of the rebate in return for CAP 'concessions'. Again, the EU only needs to get to one person (the PM) to get their way. That is completely unacceptable.
The PM isn't a dictator - this isn't a case of the USSR buttering up Mao.
It's a democratic organization that gets votes from other democratic organizations. Without knowing the details of this, presumably Blair had to convince his cabinet and Parliament to make the appropriate legislative changes, and the EU had to convince it's parliament to approve legislative change on it's end.
Any greivance you have here is with our political system - our elected representatives did the thing, not the EU. That there was no unwinding clause on the Lisbon treaty could be pointed at both - the EU didn't add one and our elected (by party) representative didn't insist on one.
David Davis is answering urgent questions in the Commons on the Brexit negotiations. He's claiming that "regulatory alignment" will apply to the whole of the UK (then why did the DUP object?) and that "alignment does not mean the same standards" it means regulations "that give similar results".
It's going to be deeply funny over the next few weeks reading Brexiteers working their way to the conclusion that following slightly rewritten EU rules, but not making them, is a triumph for British sovereignty, up yours Brussels, etc.
monarda wrote: David Davis is answering urgent questions in the Commons on the Brexit negotiations. He's claiming that "regulatory alignment" will apply to the whole of the UK (then why did the DUP object?) and that "alignment does not mean the same standards" it means regulations "that give similar results".
Regulatory alignment is the only way we'd be allowed to trade to the EU, so it was always going to happen. That means "satisfy any EU regulations insisted on with no say, for anything that goes to the EU" and in reality means "satisfy any EU regulations insisted on with no say" because almost no-one is going to follow a different set of regulations for the domestic market.
This is the one main reason I'm against Brexit - that it's entirely pointless.
I'm on the move, so if anybody wants the link to this story, it's in The Guardian newspaper.
With probably the straightest face in political history, the EU have announced its tax haven blacklist. It seems Naminia is the place to go these days.
Personally, I'm very depressed. Where will I stash my loot?
I need a holiday. I was thinking Luxembourg, or Cyprus, or Malta...
Maybe I should stop off at Juncker's office en route for advice?
Seriously, this is why I can't be done with the EU. They're as two-faced as everybody else.
monarda wrote: David Davis is answering urgent questions in the Commons on the Brexit negotiations. He's claiming that "regulatory alignment" will apply to the whole of the UK (then why did the DUP object?) and that "alignment does not mean the same standards" it means regulations "that give similar results".
Regulatory alignment is the only way we'd be allowed to trade to the EU, so it was always going to happen. That means "satisfy any EU regulations insisted on with no say, for anything that goes to the EU" and in reality means "satisfy any EU regulations insisted on with no say" because almost no-one is going to follow a different set of regulations for the domestic market.
This is the one main reason I'm against Brexit - that it's entirely pointless.
In our dealings with the USA or say, Australia, which are also first world democracies, we'd need high standards as well. That's not unique to the EU.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In our dealings with the USA or say, Australia, which are also first world democracies, we'd need high standards as well. That's not unique to the EU.
Definitely; we'll need to comply with the standards of anyone we sell stuff to. It's just the EU is the most prominent and was the only one we could shape. We're now downgrading EU regulatory compliance to the same "do what we're told" level as everyone else.
monarda wrote: David Davis is answering urgent questions in the Commons on the Brexit negotiations. He's claiming that "regulatory alignment" will apply to the whole of the UK (then why did the DUP object?) and that "alignment does not mean the same standards" it means regulations "that give similar results".
It's going to be deeply funny over the next few weeks reading Brexiteers working their way to the conclusion that following slightly rewritten EU rules, but not making them, is a triumph for British sovereignty, up yours Brussels, etc.
If it were that simple, I doubt any Remain voters would have any issues with Brexit, because it would just be business as usual.
It takes shift of less than two percentage points moving from leave to remain to change the result, though.
As it's been repeated often, the result was so thin as to fall within margin of error.
A shift of 5% in favour of Brexit would make it unarguable though, according to a poster earlier in this thread.
Trying to imply these disconnected polls of a few thousand people are representative of a larger trend would appear to be exceedingly iffy, let alone trying to base any kind of argument for the moral legitimacy (or lack thereof) of Brexit upon it.
Trying to imply these disconnected polls of a few thousand people are representative of a larger trend would appear to be exceedingly iffy,
That's what polls do by default, infer information from a big group using data from a representative sample. It's one of the best paying social sciences if you're good at it.
Back to DUP-litics, I saw this today. Karma and all that.
That said, everything is still in too much of a state of flux for people to really see what they might want to react to. Just look at yesterday's events which concern nothing more than the NI border situation. Reflect that the "divorce bill" also is not yet resolved, or the details of EU citizens rights, and all this is before we've even started the main body of negotiation.
When the terms of the final deal are settled, it would not be unreasonable to refer them to the country for ratification by referendum, then a vote in parliament to make them law.
Aye. If they're generally reasonable (all this newspaper panic-mongering about red lines, exit bills, and so on aside) in the final draft, and everyone can get on with their lives for the most part, it'll be a rather damp ending to the whole affair. That's what I'm hoping for. Cameron's special sword sheathing maneouvre giving more power to Tory nutters combined with a stronger than expected nationalist/federalist element in Brussels has served to make it all as painful as possible to watch so far, but it may still well work out. These things always look terrible in slow motion.
That's what polls do by default, infer information from a big group using data from a representative sample. It's one of the best paying social sciences if you're good at it.
Eh.....inferences are made by interpreters of data. Not by the data itself.
Hence why nobody with any real understanding of them would try and start making announcements about the general trend in views of some 40 million people based off of a handful of polls showing (already contradictory) data gathered from a few thousand people. Not unless you're feasting upon some delicious confirmation bias whilst skimming through headlines.
Thing is, this is exactly the conversation I had with one of my conservative (small c) friends before the referendum; despite the fact that he was moderately in favour of leaving, he was voting for remain on the basis that if we stay harmonised with the EU (I.e. soft Brexit), we’ll still have to abide by the regulations, make contributions and all that will happen is we will have given up our democratic input to the system, so what’s the point in leaving. And if we go for what is now known as a hard Brexit, it will make a complete mess of our economy and global relationships, which he couldn’t conscience.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm on the move, so if anybody wants the link to this story, it's in The Guardian newspaper.
With probably the straightest face in political history, the EU have announced its tax haven blacklist. It seems Naminia is the place to go these days.
Personally, I'm very depressed. Where will I stash my loot?
I need a holiday. I was thinking Luxembourg, or Cyprus, or Malta...
Maybe I should stop off at Juncker's office en route for advice?
Seriously, this is why I can't be done with the EU. They're as two-faced as everybody else.
monarda wrote: David Davis is answering urgent questions in the Commons on the Brexit negotiations. He's claiming that "regulatory alignment" will apply to the whole of the UK (then why did the DUP object?) and that "alignment does not mean the same standards" it means regulations "that give similar results".
Regulatory alignment is the only way we'd be allowed to trade to the EU, so it was always going to happen. That means "satisfy any EU regulations insisted on with no say, for anything that goes to the EU" and in reality means "satisfy any EU regulations insisted on with no say" because almost no-one is going to follow a different set of regulations for the domestic market.
This is the one main reason I'm against Brexit - that it's entirely pointless.
In our dealings with the USA or say, Australia, which are also first world democracies, we'd need high standards as well. That's not unique to the EU.
Whereas people like me view that as unwieldy and far more difficult than it should be.
The trade deal with Canada took a decade to work out. That's hundreds of thousands of man hours to work out a bloody trade deal.
That's only because of how comprehensive it was and covers the majority areas of trade apart from a few. When it is individual countries you get much less simply because you hold less cards and clout with the other side.
Also, the idea that they have each others back doesn't always work out, and the larger nations just barge out the smaller ones. The whole agricultural model of the EU basically favours the French over everyone else.
I would have thought that they being supportive of Ireland in the current Brexit fiasco would show that's not really true at all.
As it's been repeated often, the result was so thin as to fall within margin of error.
A shift of 5% in favour of Brexit would make it unarguable though, according to a poster earlier in this thread.
It depends on how many people turn out to vote again.
If only 20% of the populace vote but you get a 5% (or even 15%) shift in the vote there is not much you can say because of the potential votes vastly outweighs those that did vote and there is a greater probability that you have sampled a group that is further from than the true median value. On the other hand if there is a 99% turnout (unlikely but it is for example purposes only) then a 5% swing is completely significant because the voters left even if they voted in the opposite way could not change that actual result.
The difficultly with the 2016 referendum is within a small margin was split by 33% leave, 33% remain and 33% didn't vote. Regardless the government should consider the whole population, so with such a small margin in the result you only need a small shift in approach (from either those that didn't vote, e.g. the younger generation); or a change of heart in those that did vote; or simply a proportion of those that didn't vote thinking it would go there own way and preferred the status quo then there is a risk that you lead the country that relatively only significant minority actually support.
If I was to hazard a guess I would suggest that another vote would probably go to Remain slightly; the voting proportion would probably be lower however (lets say 60-65%) probably all on the back of a younger vote turning up and the slightly negative leave side not turning up because they just aren't that bothered about it.
I would suggest even hard line Brexiters can see another vote coming - my suspicion is this is why Rees Mogg was talking to Steve Bannon.
Trying to imply these disconnected polls of a few thousand people are representative of a larger trend would appear to be exceedingly iffy, let alone trying to base any kind of argument for the moral legitimacy (or lack thereof) of Brexit upon it.
Really you have to look at the trends overall from all polls to give an indication of direction. Any individual poll is subject to biases, methods of selection and weighting given to people of different age groups (and who knows how they work out the youth vote at the moment). As such any given poll is not a good indicator (it doesn't help they generally don't show the errors either). On the other hand you can draw some conclusions from the trends. So if you see a gradual softening over time from multiple polls towards the EU then it likely is real and by plotting these over time you can give yourself a good idea of how rapid that change is. It is similar to the employment figures. In any quarters data the result of slight decrease is generally statistically insignificant but when taken over several quarters it can be much more enlightening (although it is still liable to selection bias if for example you phone the same company each month).
Your also speaking to someone who believes that the EU is too bound by the smaller countries (the Canada deal was delayed due to an issue with a small part of Belgium) but also steamrollers past countries on other things.
Like I've said, the system doesn't work as is it. And won't work until every country gives up sovereignty and gets reformed into a state system like the US has.
Funny how that bung to the DUP to get them onside didn’t seem to hold up well. I guess they’re only taking money to be Tory allies when it suits them anyway. That whole deal was a farce and May shouldn’t have been allowed to form a government on the back of it because it clearly wasn’t a genuine deal to form a stable majority with unity. She should admit now she’s running minority government.
If you look into NI politics in more detail you find that the DUP hold power in the north-eastern counties which also tended to vote Leave. The DUP are representing their own constituents in voting against the EU regardless of the wishes of the NI population as a whole.
I'm happy for the DUP to represent their own people's interests, but when it comes to the "tail wagging the dog" effect on the rest of the UK, there is a point at which I'm going to say feth off.
To go back to the argument around the referendum, some of the key problems are:
Not binding but the government decided to take it as binding.
Didn't vote to leave the EFTA and customs union, etc but government decided to take it as that.
The Maybot obviously is in thrall to extreme right-wing elements of the Tory Party and its supporters, who mainly (I believe) want to stop the EU assault on UK facilitated off-shore tax havens.
I can’t help thinking that a decent leader in a sensible democratic should be able to hold a minority government in the current climate, and carry it through to Brexit. Both Labour and the Tory’s have said they will support it, so I feel a minority government could build a consensus and a deal that the country would like.
Unfortunately we have a poor leader and a Parliament that is to partisan so we have the loonies grabbing power.
At the moment, all I can see ihappening s a chaotic crash out of the EU while our political overlords squabble, bicker and blame each other for the mess.
Nobody voted for this.
There's a number of people who would rather crash out chaotically than risk some kind of compromise Norway or Iceland style. It is the usual bunch of Tories from the right wing of the party, Rees-Mogg and so on, who keep advising us to walk away from the negotiations now and sit on our hands doing nothing for the next 16 months..
Eh.....inferences are made by interpreters of data. Not by the data itself.
Hence why nobody with any real understanding of them would try and start making announcements about the general trend in views of some 40 million people based off of a handful of polls showing (already contradictory) data gathered from a few thousand people. Not unless you're feasting upon some delicious confirmation bias whilst skimming through headlines.
Well of course data doesn't infer anything because it's just a bunch of bits in a spreadsheet.
A properly conducted poll on a representative sample does give valuable info on trends. Politicians and companies pay handsomely to those companies with a proven record of accuracy.
It's a science, social but science nevertheless. But of course "experts" and all that.
I'll say this, and I'll say no more on it, for obvious OT reasons.
30 or 40 pages ago I said that Brexit is not happening in a vaacum. Whilst we are talking to the EU, the rest of the world is getting on with things.
He who shall not be named is just about to make a major Middle East annoumcement. The UAE are aligning with Saudia Arabia, and Qatar may be heading towards the Iran camp due to recent ME events.
Dynamics and power plays are changing here and God only knows what the result will be.
Bottom line is this: who knows what will hapen, anything could change the Brexit dynamic, and a week is a long time in politics, and all that...
Well of course data doesn't infer anything because it's just a bunch of bits in a spreadsheet.
A properly conducted poll on a representative sample does give valuable info on trends. Politicians and companies pay handsomely to those companies with a proven record of accuracy.
It's a science, social but science nevertheless. But of course "experts" and all that.
Guv, believe me when I say I understand the basic concept of interpreting data to reach a conclusion.
Just accept that claiming that a few polls (I counted four) of around 2,000 people each (that's what they are) done in specific geographic locales (one was only in the North of England, for example) are a terrible set of data points to try and make any serious inferences regarding the changing moods of some 45 million people across an entire nation over the last several months; and any "expert" (as you put it) would collapse laughing at anyone who tried. There's a reason the results contradict even each other, you know?
Looking at the "expert" thing you put in quote marks though (to hearken back to that dumb Gove comment about "not needing experts", link what I'm saying to it, and thus dismiss me), I'm really not entirely sure why you feel this compulsive need to keep trying to slip little put downs inside your posts to me. I tried to get you to explain one when you last tried to argue with me, and you refused to even acknowedge you'd done it, let alone apologise for it. I could roll with it if we'd been debating for several posts and were getting tetchy with each other (it happens, and I'm as guilty as anyone there), but just shooting attitude out of the blue? Makes you look like a bit of a spanker, mate.
Could you do me a favour and just talk to me in a polite and friendly fashion? I can deal with the whole 'needing to argue compulsively over every little thing' aspect, but I really can't be bothered to deal with people who lack the basic manners to engage with me in a forthright, polite, and above all, well-intentioned way. Seriously guv, we're in the OT on a toy soldiers forum. Play nicely or find something better to do with your hours.
The longer the delay, the more the suspicion grows that these sectoral analyses contain such frighteningly bad news that Davis, a core Brexiteer, is repressing them for fear it will cause a big mood swing among the people.
Please...please pop off your Union Jack Waistcoats. Just for a moment.
This. Is. A. Mess.
It ain't what many of you voted for. And the Government haven't a clue what they want, or how to deliver it.
It's time to apply the breaks, have a good sit and a think. And likely, call a second referendum, before we're plunged over a cliff to the strains of Rule Britannia.
I don't know about the waistcoats, but it does look like David Davis has decided to take a running jump off Beachy Head because he doesn't believe in physical models of gravity and wind effects.
Unfortunately he's pulling all the rest of us along with him.
It's utterly inconceivable that the government should not have considered the economic impacts of Brexit in the past year. Everyone else has, and practically all of them look bad.
Kilkrazy wrote: The longer the delay, the more the suspicion grows that these sectoral analyses contain such frighteningly bad news that Davis, a core Brexiteer, is repressing them for fear it will cause a big mood swing among the people.
I'm no fan of this Brexit nonsense but how bad can the predictions be? "By September the entirely of Kent will be on fire. Cannibalism will have become the staple food of Yorkshire and nothing has entered or left the pulsing radioactive cloud at the border of Scotland for three weeks."
Graphite wrote: I'm no fan of this Brexit nonsense but how bad can the predictions be? "By September the entirely of Kent will be on fire. Cannibalism will have become the staple food of Yorkshire and nothing has entered or left the pulsing radioactive cloud at the border of Scotland for three weeks."
I've seen estimates of as much as a £168bn/year hit to the economy from a hard Brexit, that's about 6.3% of the current economy*. Prices for almost everything will increase, further austerity will be required pushing lots of services from just-about-scraping-by to you've-got-to-be-kidding-me. Even longer hospital waiting times (and more deaths), police taking longer to attend where they even bother, worse roads, worse services, less school resources, and so on.
Then it gets even worse with a totally hard 'just stop negotiating' brexit, as we'll potentially lose access to all sorts of things.
I don't think we'll see regions burnt to the ground or turn feral, but we'll see a marked reduction in quality of life, lifespan and an increase in avoidable deaths and foodbank usage.
*banking sector is meant to be 11% of the economy, and if they lose access they'll need to move too. Our debt burden will get worse if we drop credit rating again, too.
So much of the Leave campaign was based on wishful thinking, it needs to be exposed.
Whilst we can't deal with facts until, well, after the fact, we can be better informed about possibilities and likelihood.
People don't understand how fragile economies can be. In the UK, we're service industry lead for the most part. Only takes a couple of big players to ship their call centres overseas, and things start crumbling locally.
We're also big on banking. Except it looks like certain parts of Canary Wharf (which if I look to my right, I can see right now. JP Morgan and HSBC are my eyeline) may upsticks. And when The City catches a cold, it bodes ill for all of us.
Brexit sadly has been hijacked by the proverbial swivel eyed loonies in the Tory Party, demanding it be as hard as possible, for reasons of self interest (likely disaster capitalism).
As I understand it, the worst case scenario for a Hard Brexit is a 9% drop in GDP.
Assuming it's not that bad, we could be looking at a 4-5% fall in GDP assuming an average worth of bad effects.
Even that will be pretty bad.
I mean, no-one at all is predicting an upswing in the economy. That's all far in the future, even according to Brexiteers, because we need to get good trade deals worked out and ratified.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, the worst case scenario for a Hard Brexit is a 9% drop in GDP.
Assuming it's not that bad, we could be looking at a 4-5% fall in GDP assuming an average worth of bad effects.
Even that will be pretty bad.
I mean, no-one at all is predicting an upswing in the economy. That's all far in the future, even according to Brexiteers, because we need to get good trade deals worked out and ratified.
Unfortunately the vast majority of Brexiters are either hopeless optimists or wilfully ignorant. They believe trade deals are easy and all the delays are down to the EU. They are about to find out it’s not.
I don't think it's impossible for the UK to be a successful country outside the EU. Lots of other countries manage it and make trade deals and so on.
However I don't think it's certain to happen, for various reasons. Firstly because we have got to cope with the fallout from Brexit, which Canada for instance doesn't, and secondly because the UK has some serious economic problems already which are not the result of the EU and also are not necessarily shared by Canada and so on.
Worse, our recent national governance has been such an omnishambles that I have rather low confidence in our ability as a nation to find the leaders and executives to resolve the problems outlined above.
IMO, one of the problems with Brexit, and society in general, is that we live in this 24hr hours news cycle, instant gratification, society.
We want it all, and we want it done 5 minutes ago.
We really need to come back to this in 12 months time, before we launch into snap judgements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crazyterran wrote: Hey, maybe if you ask nicely you can become a colony of Canada?
Yeah, but aren't you guys a colony of the USA these days?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think it's impossible for the UK to be a successful country outside the EU. Lots of other countries manage it and make trade deals and so on.
However I don't think it's certain to happen, for various reasons. Firstly because we have got to cope with the fallout from Brexit, which Canada for instance doesn't, and secondly because the UK has some serious economic problems already which are not the result of the EU and also are not necessarily shared by Canada and so on.
Worse, our recent national governance has been such an omnishambles that I have rather low confidence in our ability as a nation to find the leaders and executives to resolve the problems outlined above.
The very fact that it's so difficult to leave the EU, is proof, if any were needed, that it was the right thing to do.
It's Hercules battling the Hydra. Cut off one head, three more grow back. Brexit is the fire that is needed to seal the stump.
Our political class have forgotten how to govern. Brexit is the swift , hard, boot to the rear that was badly needed.
I've always said this, and no man or woman on dakka can take me to task for this, but I've always said from the referendum campaign to day 1, that it wasn't going to be easy.
Yes, I agree with people that there was nothing stopping us from doing that, but to me, the situation had reached such an impasse, that a massive jolt like Brexit was the only way this nation could ready itself for the 21st century.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, the worst case scenario for a Hard Brexit is a 9% drop in GDP.
Assuming it's not that bad, we could be looking at a 4-5% fall in GDP assuming an average worth of bad effects.
Even that will be pretty bad.
I mean, no-one at all is predicting an upswing in the economy. That's all far in the future, even according to Brexiteers, because we need to get good trade deals worked out and ratified.
Unfortunately the vast majority of Brexiters are either hopeless optimists or wilfully ignorant. They believe trade deals are easy and all the delays are down to the EU. They are about to find out it’s not.
Nothing wrong with being optimistic. It was optimism that created the EU in the first place.
The very fact that it's so difficult to leave the EU, is proof, if any were needed, that it was the right thing to do.
The very fact it's so difficult to build a fission reactor in your back garden is proof, if any were needed, that it was the right thing to do.
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. For an easy example which everyone can try at home, try to open a pull door by pushing it.
It's a squeaky voice teenager picking a fight with a Gang of Bikers to prove how well 'ard he is.
This is a fools errand. Why can't you just admit that?
Ready ourselves for the 21st Century by regressing back to the 1950's?
DINLT votes Remain = Brexit
DINLT votes Leave = Brexit
DINLT doesn't vote = Brexit
Everybody on dakka votes Remain = Brexit.
etc etc etc
Let's be honest, it doesn't really matter what anybody on dakka thinks. Naturally of course, it's enjoyable to have conversations on a wide range of issues, but you're mistaking me for somebody who had 17 million vote on June 23rd, instead of the 1 vote.
We really need to come back to this in 12 months time, before we launch into snap judgements.
Normally I'd agree, but if we leave this gakshow unsupervised for a year, what do you think we'll get? Davis had essentially admitted he's still done no planning and may or may not have lied about having reports. It's hard to tell if he's actually done anything yet, and you want to leave him alone for 12 of the 16 months left to sort everything?
The very fact that it's so difficult to leave the EU, is proof, if any were needed, that it was the right thing to do.
Why? It's very hard to live off-grid, or only eating grains, doesn't mean it's a good idea. It just shows how tightly integrated into the EU we are. And to be fair, with a competent governing team with an idea of what it wanted to do, a mandate and a spine, they'd be making Brexit look easy.
It's Hercules battling the Hydra. Cut off one head, three more grow back. Brexit is the fire that is needed to seal the stump.
Nonsense. It's some clueless kids wandering off into the wilderness and wondering why every time they bumble past an obstacle they hit another one. They've hit absolutely no issues yet that we didn't predict 18 months ago.
Our political class have forgotten how to govern.
Yup, but...
Brexit is the swift , hard, boot to the rear that was badly needed.
How? They still clearly don't know how to govern, but we've now left the buck at them with no oversight. Things can only get worse.
I've always said this, and no man or woman on dakka can take me to task for this, but I've always said from the referendum campaign to day 1, that it wasn't going to be easy.
No-one doubts that. It was obviously going to be hard.
Yes, I agree with people that there was nothing stopping us from doing that, but to me, the situation had reached such an impasse, that a massive jolt like Brexit was the only way this nation could ready itself for the 21st century.
In what way are we getting anything ready for the 21st century? We're bucking pretty much every modern trend here.
Nothing wrong with being optimistic. It was optimism that created the EU in the first place.
Optimism and pragmatism are what created the EU, and it's worked well. You need more than just optimism to get something good at the end, like a plan, or idea, or something.
Just goes to show how pointless this thread is really.
I suppose you could say that about a lot of threads, but I suppose most threads are fun, and politics is often serious. But yeah, I agree with what you're saying.
I bear no ill will towards my fellow dakka members, regardless of what side they're on, and even the people I blocked
I wish my fellow dakka members good luck, hope they don't lose their jobs or homes, and wish them all the success in the world.
But we are where we are with Brexit, and there's nothing nobody can do about it on dakka.
At the risk of sounding like granpa Simpson, I was there in the 1980s when the gak hit the fan with Thatcher and the miners, and of course, when the Wall came tumbling down in Berlin.
Things seemed scary, things were up in the air, and the future was this unknown place full of hope and often dread.
Things calm down and often fix themselves. Let's see where we are in 12 months with Brexit.
The case for giving NI a special deal is pretty good, and rests on the factors of:
1. Land border with EU country.
2. Continuation of the Peace Process.
3. No land border with the rest of the UK.
It doesn't make sense in economic terms, but that is true about a lot of Brexit, leading to the calls by other regions for a "special" deal, which therefore might as well be a special deal for the whole of the UK.
Isn't our so-called government trying to negotiate permission to start negotiating a special deal at the moment?
The very fact that it's so difficult to leave the EU, is proof, if any were needed, that it was the right thing to do.
The very fact it's so difficult to build a fission reactor in your back garden is proof, if any were needed, that it was the right thing to do.
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. For an easy example which everyone can try at home, try to open a pull door by pushing it.
You've obviously never see my doors
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The case for giving NI a special deal is pretty good, and rests on the factors of:
1. Land border with EU country.
2. Continuation of the Peace Process.
3. No land border with the rest of the UK.
It doesn't make sense in economic terms, but that is true about a lot of Brexit, leading to the calls by other regions for a "special" deal, which therefore might as well be a special deal for the whole of the UK.
Isn't our so-called government trying to negotiate permission to start negotiating a special deal at the moment?
London could have bought off Cardiff and Edinburgh by promising them a host of extra powers coming back from Brussels, but true to form, they fethed that up as well.
Kilkrazy wrote: The case for giving NI a special deal is pretty good, and rests on the factors of:
1. Land border with EU country.
2. Continuation of the Peace Process.
3. No land border with the rest of the UK.
It doesn't make sense in economic terms, but that is true about a lot of Brexit, leading to the calls by other regions for a "special" deal, which therefore might as well be a special deal for the whole of the UK.
Isn't our so-called government trying to negotiate permission to start negotiating a special deal at the moment?
Oh, and don't forget places like Grimsby voting Leave, then demanding the Government cough up those EU subsidies they've been enjoying. Because that's not extracting the Michael by any stretch of the imagination. Oh no. Not at all. Nor is it in anyway indicative of just how shockingly uninformed many Leave voters appear to have been.
Normally I'd agree, but if we leave this gakshow unsupervised for a year, what do you think we'll get? Davis had essentially admitted he's still done no planning and may or may not have lied about having reports. It's hard to tell if he's actually done anything yet, and you want to leave him alone for 12 of the 16 months left to sort everything?
@Herzlos
If you have an opposition that won't oppose, this is what happens. Corbyn has been getting away scot-free on Brexit. What is the Labour party's position?
I'm not blaming Labour for everything, but they ain't helping either.
We have Labour party members on this thread do we not? Perhaps they can raise this key issue at their next local branch meeting.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you have an opposition that won't oppose, this is what happens. Corbyn has been getting away scot-free on Brexit. What is the Labour party's position?
Corbyn offered to take over right after the GE and as far as I'm aware the offer is still open. Labour were proposing an economy-first Brexit (Brexit but avoiding anything that'd destroy the economy, so more than like EEA membership). I think Corbyn has also been giving May a pretty hard time about Brexit and their lack of direction at every possible opportunity.
To be fair, Brexit is such a gakshow I'm not surprised anyone wants to touch it. Labour are (politically) better off letting it go spectacularly wrong and then sweeping in to fix it. No-one really wants to be at the helm for this mess, as the only options they have are political suicide.
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, and I understand why Labour want the Tories to implode and be out of the reckoning for the next 10 years, but Labour could have had it all and propelled themselves to victory.
How? By playing the compromise card.
Labour could have said, yeah, we voted Leave, but it was 52/48, so we'll try and bring on board some moderate Remainers as well.
We do this by pushing the EFTA/EEA arrangement. it's not perfect, but it helps solve issues like Ireland.
Die-hard Remainers and Brexiteers won't like it, but there's a cross-party majority in the commons to get it through.
And most ordinary voters are in the middle, so they'd probably be happy. The EU is on our doorstep and is not going away, but we don't want the Euro, EU army, USE. whatever etc etc
This half-way house, compromise scenario, could have been the ultimate classic British fudge, and could have, and maybe still, win the day for Labour.
And it probably would have been negotiated by now as well.
I'll be honest and say this was a great fear of mine, that somebody might go for the above.
but I've always said from the referendum campaign to day 1, that it wasn't going to be easy.
.... ..
what were you saying about the Khmer Rouge and people rewriting history ?
I'm not re-writing history. When did I ever say it was going to be easy?
I've always said that whatever problems they were, would not be insurmountable to a nation that gave the world The Industrial Revolution and association football.
You effectively said it would be easy by saying we should have invoked article 50 the day after the referendum, completely ignoring all of the work that was required to prepare for the negotiations.
Herzlos wrote: I honestly don't know why Labour didn't campaign the GE on that basis, I suspect they were just as caught out as everyone by the snap announcement.
With Corbyn being anti-EU and most of his party being pro-EU it's no doubt taken a long time to figure out a decent plan.
You're right they should be jumping up and down about a moderate Brexit.
Toe-In-The-Water.
They can't be the ones to deliver Brexit. They can't be the ones to deny Brexit.
The whole debacle is a Tory Squabble writ large. Why would anyone not be content to just sit on the sidelines and watch The Nasty Party rip itself apart, before finally implementing it's most ruinous excesses? It's not just a party about to be taken down, but a whole shade of politics - Neo-Liberalism.
This is my generation's 3 Day Week. This is our Winter Of Discontent. The time when a political style becomes unthinkable for at least a generation.
If you're a Socialist, why would you possibly want to avoid that self destruction? Just get your dust pan and brush out, and look forward to around a decade of Blame-Free-Politics.
A Town Called Malus wrote: You effectively said it would be easy by saying we should have invoked article 50 the day after the referendum, completely ignoring all of the work that was required to prepare for the negotiations.
Considering the complete and utter feth up we've had from delaying A50 activation, I don't think it could have gone any worse. It might have sped up the process by focusing some minds. At any rate, the government should have been working at it hammer and tongs 24/7.
If you've any complaints as to why pre-referendum planning for a Leave vote didn't happen, then I suggest you direct them to one David Cameron.
Herzlos wrote: I honestly don't know why Labour didn't campaign the GE on that basis, I suspect they were just as caught out as everyone by the snap announcement.
With Corbyn being anti-EU and most of his party being pro-EU it's no doubt taken a long time to figure out a decent plan.
You're right they should be jumping up and down about a moderate Brexit.
Toe-In-The-Water.
They can't be the ones to deliver Brexit. They can't be the ones to deny Brexit.
The whole debacle is a Tory Squabble writ large. Why would anyone not be content to just sit on the sidelines and watch The Nasty Party rip itself apart, before finally implementing it's most ruinous excesses? It's not just a party about to be taken down, but a whole shade of politics - Neo-Liberalism.
This is my generation's 3 Day Week. This is our Winter Of Discontent. The time when a political style becomes unthinkable for at least a generation.
If you're a Socialist, why would you possibly want to avoid that self destruction? Just get your dust pan and brush out, and look forward to around a decade of Blame-Free-Politics.
The flip-side to the Tories owning it is that Labour could have shown leadership and statesman like aura by campaigning on the compromise solution I outlined.
If there was a GE tomorrow, and Labour campaigned on that platform, they'd probably win it. Moderate Tories and Lib Dem voters would probably flock to Corbyn. Hell, Vince Cable would probably back Corbyn on this.
