@CarlottaVance@Black_Rook Undoubtedly Sturgeon is seeing a window of opportunity about to slam shut. Yesterday's Herald article is undoubtedly a response to the success of the Leave Campaign. She's attempting to abandon any attempt at making it stack up in conventional terms and going for identity. The second arm of the pincer will be a USP. An anglophone Single Market zone on the island of Britain using GMT. It's the new oil. I'm not saying it will work. But if her premise is correct, that hard Brexit will reinforce the Union she has to move before it happens.
Ha Ha Ha , Hard Brexit , you have to be joking. Those turkeys will agree to freedom of movement and a crap deal worse than we have now. More paper waving to come from the Tories for sure.
Support for independence still light years away from the consistent 60% that has previously been said to be necessary to ensure a strong likelihood of victory.
Said by whom?
But senior SNP sources are said to have told BBC Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s Politics that they have also set a “test” of polls showing at least 60% support for independence for more than a year.
Media mentions anonymous sources to push a meme? Oh well, that's settles it.
Like Sturgeon is going to say that on the record.......
A level of 60% support for Scottish independence over the period of a year has been identified as a benchmark in making the decision over a second referendum, senior SNP sources say.
The figure is a "trigger point", but will not be publicly acknowledged, sources told the BBC's John Pienaar.
Does it matter? If they don't have such a policy they jolly well should have. The first referendum was said, I can't remember by whom, to "settle the matter for a generation". I don't believe that, but a second one will "settle the matter for a generation and this time we really mean it". It would be bonkers to go off at half cock and the 60% for a year rule looks quite a good way of avoiding that.
Incidentally, Rosberg's down to 2.2 with Ladbrokes for the title. Unsure who suggested backing him at 4 (Mr. Putney?) pre-Singapore, but it proved a cunning suggestion.
Poetry much the arguments for Brexit, excepting the currency, of course.
Question: if we vote against our own interests with Brexit, why should we not vote against our own interests with ndependence?
It's at the very least a difficult question for Conservatives on Scotland.
As always you miss the point that there is no great love of the EU in Britain, if you think there is then you need your head examined. In Scotland there is a huge amount of Unionism, it is part of the national DNA. There were few ties that bound the UK to the EU, a bit of trade and some money being recycled back to us, beyond that few people believe in the European identity bullshit they've been pushing for the last 30 years. If the SNP want to make the appeal on national identity like Brexit did, it's not going to be easy. Out only just won with the EU being a complete shithouse, Yes would have to win against 300 years of Unionism and against the economic tide. 48% of people still voted to remain, the vast majority of those voted on a "safety first" basis rather than because of some sense of Europeanism or being an EUphile, in fact many will have voted In despite those facts. There are not as many votes like those who can be tipped to Yes in Scotland with the national identity arguments.
Emotions are deeply held, which is why you and many others voted for Brexit and mostly why nearly half of Scots voted for independence. But Carlotta's objection was on the logic. There's a point buried in your comment, I think, that ties between Britain and the EU are weaker than those between Scotland and the EU. That argument could be turned round though, Brexit doesn't make such a fundamental difference because the UK will be sovereign country either way and therefore it what is in our interest should perhaps be the key driver. The prize for Scotland is bigger. We become a sovereign country with independence, albeit an impoverished one
Sounds like Panorama tonight will be interesting. Looking at Labour's woes. Kinnock tells them he fears he won't see a Labour government again in his lifetime. He's 74. I reckon he'll need to make it into his 90s.
I hope they ask him how goes his project to grind the Tories into the dust....
Support for independence still light years away from the consistent 60% that has previously been said to be necessary to ensure a strong likelihood of victory.
Said by whom?
But senior SNP sources are said to have told BBC Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s Politics that they have also set a “test” of polls showing at least 60% support for independence for more than a year.
Media mentions anonymous sources to push a meme? Oh well, that's settles it.
Like Sturgeon is going to say that on the record.......
A level of 60% support for Scottish independence over the period of a year has been identified as a benchmark in making the decision over a second referendum, senior SNP sources say.
The figure is a "trigger point", but will not be publicly acknowledged, sources told the BBC's John Pienaar.
Does it matter? If they don't have such a policy they jolly well should have. The first referendum was said, I can't remember by whom, to "settle the matter for a generation". I don't believe that, but a second one will "settle the matter for a generation and this time we really mean it". It would be bonkers to go off at half cock and the 60% for a year rule looks quite a good way of avoiding that.
Whether there's a policy or not, deliberately leaking it via 'anonymous sources' is just a hostage to fortune, with Yoons (who for folk so publicly certain of winning again seem strangely reluctant to settle the matter once and for all) happily turning it into an ineluctable law of referenda. 'Yes only at 55% for 6 months? Better not bother, eh?'
Mr. Dugarbandier, it's that level of decision-making excellence that led the BBC to make Chris Evans the Top Gear host.
A few moments of silence, followed by a splash and applause. Truly awesome radio
Chris Evans would probably have made a good host. Trouble is the BBC tried to turn him into Jeremy Clarkson and Top Gear into Fifth Gear, neither of which was obviously a good idea.
Mr. L, must [mostly] disagree. Never seen the appeal of Evans (generally).
That said, the Clarkson pretence just made things worse. I didn't even make it through the intro. I don't want to be shouted at by a second rate Clarkson impersonator.
Support for independence still light years away from the consistent 60% that has previously been said to be necessary to ensure a strong likelihood of victory.
Said by whom?
But senior SNP sources are said to have told BBC Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s Politics that they have also set a “test” of polls showing at least 60% support for independence for more than a year.
Media mentions anonymous sources to push a meme? Oh well, that's settles it.
Like Sturgeon is going to say that on the record.......
A level of 60% support for Scottish independence over the period of a year has been identified as a benchmark in making the decision over a second referendum, senior SNP sources say.
The figure is a "trigger point", but will not be publicly acknowledged, sources told the BBC's John Pienaar.
Does it matter? If they don't have such a policy they jolly well should have. The first referendum was said, I can't remember by whom, to "settle the matter for a generation". I don't believe that, but a second one will "settle the matter for a generation and this time we really mean it". It would be bonkers to go off at half cock and the 60% for a year rule looks quite a good way of avoiding that.
Whether there's a policy or not, deliberately leaking it via 'anonymous sources' is just a hostage to fortune, with Yoons (who for folk so publicly certain of winning again seem strangely reluctant to settle the matter once and for all) happily turning it into an ineluctable law of referenda. 'Yes only at 55% for 6 months? Better not bother, eh?'
Fair enough, but there must be some rule of thumb floating around. Possibly a slightly more complex one which also factors in the price of oil.
Support for independence still light years away from the consistent 60% that has previously been said to be necessary to ensure a strong likelihood of victory.
Said by whom?
But senior SNP sources are said to have told BBC Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s Politics that they have also set a “test” of polls showing at least 60% support for independence for more than a year.
Media mentions anonymous sources to push a meme? Oh well, that's settles it.
Like Sturgeon is going to say that on the record.......
A level of 60% support for Scottish independence over the period of a year has been identified as a benchmark in making the decision over a second referendum, senior SNP sources say.
The figure is a "trigger point", but will not be publicly acknowledged, sources told the BBC's John Pienaar.
Does it matter? If they don't have such a policy they jolly well should have. The first referendum was said, I can't remember by whom, to "settle the matter for a generation". I don't believe that, but a second one will "settle the matter for a generation and this time we really mean it". It would be bonkers to go off at half cock and the 60% for a year rule looks quite a good way of avoiding that.
Whether there's a policy or not, deliberately leaking it via 'anonymous sources' is just a hostage to fortune,
I wonder if Theresa May's plans to allow schools to pick 100% solely by faith applies to these kids...take your pick.....Marxism, Catholicism, Muslim, Thick Kids, Clever Kids....all segregated by the age of 11.....
The really scary thing is that the only other party in the UK capable of getting a majority has been taken over by spartist loonies.
While they are unlikely to win, events dear boy, events, mean you cant entirely rule it out and then we would find ourselves in a slightly more polite version of the Pol Pot regime.
Support for independence still light years away from the consistent 60% that has previously been said to be necessary to ensure a strong likelihood of victory.
Said by whom?
But senior SNP sources are said to have told BBC Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s Politics that they have also set a “test” of polls showing at least 60% support for independence for more than a year.
Media mentions anonymous sources to push a meme? Oh well, that's settles it.
Like Sturgeon is going to say that on the record.......
A level of 60% support for Scottish independence over the period of a year has been identified as a benchmark in making the decision over a second referendum, senior SNP sources say.
The figure is a "trigger point", but will not be publicly acknowledged, sources told the BBC's John Pienaar.
Does it matter? If they don't have such a policy they jolly well should have. The first referendum was said, I can't remember by whom, to "settle the matter for a generation". I don't believe that, but a second one will "settle the matter for a generation and this time we really mean it". It would be bonkers to go off at half cock and the 60% for a year rule looks quite a good way of avoiding that.
Whether there's a policy or not, deliberately leaking it via 'anonymous sources' is just a hostage to fortune, with Yoons (who for folk so publicly certain of winning again seem strangely reluctant to settle the matter once and for all) happily turning it into an ineluctable law of referenda. 'Yes only at 55% for 6 months? Better not bother, eh?'
Fair enough, but there must be some rule of thumb floating around. Possibly a slightly more complex one which also factors in the price of oil.
Ah, but the new line is Rich Scots or Poor Britons? / Its OUR Oil Independence transcends such hard questions we can't answer minor details.....
Poetry much the arguments for Brexit, excepting the currency, of course.
Qu
As always you miss the point that there is no great love of the EU in Britain, if you think there is then you need your head examined. In Scotland there is a huge amount of Unionism, it is part of the national DNA. There were few ties that bound the UK to the EU, a bit of trade and some money being recycled back to us, beyond that few people believe in the European identity bullshit they've been pushing for the last 30 years. If the SNP want to make the appeal on national identity like Brexit did, it's not going to be easy. Out only just won with the EU being a complete shithouse, Yes would have to win against 300 years of Unionism and against the economic tide. 48% of people still voted to remain, the vast majority of those voted on a "safety first" basis rather than because of some sense of Europeanism or being an EUphile, in fact many will have voted In despite those facts. There are not as many votes like those who can be tipped to Yes in Scotland with the national identity arguments.
Emotions are deeply held, which is why you and many others voted for Brexit and mostly why nearly half of Scots voted for independence. But Carlotta's objection was on the logic. There's a point buried in your comment, I think, that ties between Britain and the EU are weaker than those between Scotland and the EU. That argument could be turned round though, Brexit doesn't make such a fundamental difference because the UK will be sovereign country either way and therefore it what is in our interest should perhaps be the key driver. The prize for Scotland is bigger. We become a sovereign country with independence, albeit an impoverished one
I think at or near to the core of the argument was the perception of sovereignty by each side. Leave saw the meddling, the strictures, the outranking of any by "the EU" as egregious and intolerable. Remainers believed the UK was perfectly sovereign as it was, and had, as modern life dictates both on an individual and national level, entered into a mutually beneficial agreement which required some compromises but which in the end benefited the UK greatly. For these Remainers, sovereignty was never an issue (hence the illogical, to them, charge of being traitors) because they believed that agreeing to the set of rules in a club did not impinge on the notion of sovereignty or of actual sovereignty itself.
Mr. Dugarbandier, it's that level of decision-making excellence that led the BBC to make Chris Evans the Top Gear host.
A few moments of silence, followed by a splash and applause. Truly awesome radio
Chris Evans would probably have made a good host. Trouble is the BBC tried to turn him into Jeremy Clarkson and Top Gear into Fifth Gear, neither of which was obviously a good idea.
They should have let the new team make their own show, rather than trying to shoehorn new presenters /personalities into an almost identical format.
I wonder if Theresa May's plans to allow schools to pick 100% solely by faith applies to these kids...take your pick.....Marxism, Catholicism, Muslim, Thick Kids, Clever Kids....all segregated by the age of 11.....
Segregation by house price already exists.
That's the Tory line and it's partially true. However, most catchment areas have a mixture of house types, detached to flats. That's not the same as separating kids at age 11.
An interesting view that covers Trump, Brexit and Bernie
"Yes, Donald Trump is implicated in that unraveling, cavalierly undermining decades worth of social and political certainties with his rapid-fire Twitter account and persona that only the borough of Queens can produce. But so is Bernie Sanders. And so is Brexit...
If you listen closely to Trump, you’ll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech—without which identity politics is inconceivable—must be repudiated...
These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided us toward, siren-like, since 1989. That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may at times be, leads us toward: A future where states matter. A future where people are citizens, working together toward (bourgeois) improvement of their lot. His ideas do not yet fully cohere. They are a bit too much like mental dust that has yet to come together. But they can come together. And Trump is the first American candidate to bring some coherence to them, however raucous his formulations have been.
@MrHarryCole: 90 mins of howling about Brexit. LibDems off to a brisk start here in Brighton this morning. They're flying EU flags in the hall.
Well in fairness there is a significant number of potential voters who were disappointed about the result and a medium sized minority who have shown a reluctance to move on or accept it and a smallish number of those who might think that this is the most important thing and influence their vote, some of whom, maybe, don't vote Lib Dem already.
Actually, as a strategy that did not work out as well as I thought.
Poetry much the arguments for Brexit, excepting the currency, of course.
Qu
ts.
Emotions are deeply held, which is why you and many others voted for Brexit and mostly why nearly half of Scots voted for independence. But Carlotta's objection was on the logic. There's a point buried in your comment, I think, that ties between Britain and the EU are weaker than those between Scotland and the EU. That argument could be turned round though, Brexit doesn't make such a fundamental difference because the UK will be sovereign country either way and therefore it what is in our interest should perhaps be the key driver. The prize for Scotland is bigger. We become a sovereign country with independence, albeit an impoverished one
I think at or near to the core of the argument was the perception of sovereignty by each side. Leave saw the meddling, the strictures, the outranking of any by "the EU" as egregious and intolerable. Remainers believed the UK was perfectly sovereign as it was, and had, as modern life dictates both on an individual and national level, entered into a mutually beneficial agreement which required some compromises but which in the end benefited the UK greatly. For these Remainers, sovereignty was never an issue (hence the illogical, to them, charge of being traitors) because they believed that agreeing to the set of rules in a club did not impinge on the notion of sovereignty or of actual sovereignty itself.
Indeed, certainly among us PBers.
I am a little disappointed that immigration is being seen as so important. It is important in that not controlling it ourselves is a symptom of loss of sovereignty but other than limiting unskilled low wage workers and benefit seekers, which as I understand it existing EEA/EFTA rules allow Im not that keen on much change.
Like Christopher 'Barkworth' Booker, I am disappointed by the eager enthusiasm for hard Brexit by politicians who should know better
Mr. L, must [mostly] disagree. Never seen the appeal of Evans (generally).
That said, the Clarkson pretence just made things worse. I didn't even make it through the intro. I don't want to be shouted at by a second rate Clarkson impersonator.
Evans is marmite but to be fair, so is Clarkson. Both are petrolheads who have made millions from what we might call broadcasting entrepreneurialism.
But it was Fifth Gear with a bigger budget -- half a dozen presenters with no obvious chemistry borrowing ideas from the previous year's Top Gear.
@MrHarryCole: 90 mins of howling about Brexit. LibDems off to a brisk start here in Brighton this morning. They're flying EU flags in the hall.
Well in fairness there is a significant number of potential voters who were disappointed about the result and a medium sized minority who have shown a reluctance to move on or accept it and a smallish number of those who might think that this is the most important thing and influence their vote, some of whom, maybe, don't vote Lib Dem already.
Actually, as a strategy that did not work out as well as I thought.
If they're planning on relaunching as the anti-Ukip then it's not likely to get them very far. The original thing polled 12.6% of the national vote in the last General Election, and there are an awful lot more people in the country who loathe the EU than love it.
@MrHarryCole: 90 mins of howling about Brexit. LibDems off to a brisk start here in Brighton this morning. They're flying EU flags in the hall.
Well in fairness there is a significant number of potential voters who were disappointed about the result and a medium sized minority who have shown a reluctance to move on or accept it and a smallish number of those who might think that this is the most important thing and influence their vote, some of whom, maybe, don't vote Lib Dem already.
Actually, as a strategy that did not work out as well as I thought.
The trouble with the LibDems wrapping themselves in EU flags is that it's fighting a war which is over. What are they going to do when Brexit has happened? Become a campaign for rejoining?
I do wonder if they've really thought this one through.
The trouble with the LibDems wrapping themselves in EU flags is that it's fighting a war which is over. What are they going to do when Brexit has happened? Become a campaign for rejoining?
Emotions are deeply held, which is why you and many others voted for Brexit and mostly why nearly half of Scots voted for independence. But Carlotta's objection was on the logic. There's a point buried in your comment, I think, that ties between Britain and the EU are weaker than those between Scotland and the EU. That argument could be turned round though, Brexit doesn't make such a fundamental difference because the UK will be sovereign country either way and therefore it what is in our interest should perhaps be the key driver. The prize for Scotland is bigger. We become a sovereign country with independence, albeit an impoverished one
I think at or near to the core of the argument was the perception of sovereignty by each side. Leave saw the meddling, the strictures, the outranking of any by "the EU" as egregious and intolerable. Remainers believed the UK was perfectly sovereign as it was, and had, as modern life dictates both on an individual and national level, entered into a mutually beneficial agreement which required some compromises but which in the end benefited the UK greatly. For these Remainers, sovereignty was never an issue (hence the illogical, to them, charge of being traitors) because they believed that agreeing to the set of rules in a club did not impinge on the notion of sovereignty or of actual sovereignty itself.
Indeed, certainly among us PBers.
I am a little disappointed that immigration is being seen as so important. It is important in that not controlling it ourselves is a symptom of loss of sovereignty but other than limiting unskilled low wage workers and benefit seekers, which as I understand it existing EEA/EFTA rules allow Im not that keen on much change.
Like Christopher 'Barkworth' Booker, I am disappointed by the eager enthusiasm for hard Brexit by politicians who should know better
A hard Brexit is not necessarily inconsistent with essential immigration. It just means that we fix our rules here in what we perceive to be our interests (rightly or wrongly) without an agreement not to apply them to the rest of the EU or to give them priority over other potential immigrants from elsewhere.
Personally, I have pretty much given up on the idea of us having a comprehensive agreement with the EU prior to our departure. It is just too difficult and is going to take too long. We need to focus on a number of specific areas and get an interim arrangement that will work as stand alones. We can then add to those arrangements over time in the same way as Switzerland does.
Poetry much the arguments for Brexit, excepting the currency, of course.
Qu
ts.
Emotions are deeply held, which is why you and many others voted for Brexit and mostly why nearly half of Scots voted for independence. But Carlotta's objection was on the logic. There's a point buried in your comment, I think, that ties between Britain and the EU are weaker than those between Scotland and the EU. That argument could be turned round though, Brexit doesn't make such a fundamental difference because the UK will be sovereign country either way and therefore it what is in our interest should perhaps be the key driver. The prize for Scotland is bigger. We become a sovereign country with independence, albeit an impoverished one
I think at or near to the core of the argument was the perception of sovereignty by each side. Leave saw the meddling, the strictures, the outranking of any by "the EU" as egregious and intolerable. Remainers believed the UK was perfectly sovereign as it was, and had, as modern life dictates both on an individual and national level, entered into a mutually beneficial agreement which required some compromises but which in the end benefited the UK greatly. For these Remainers, sovereignty was never an issue (hence the illogical, to them, charge of being traitors) because they believed that agreeing to the set of rules in a club did not impinge on the notion of sovereignty or of actual sovereignty itself.
Indeed, certainly among us PBers.
I am a little disappointed that immigration is being seen as so important. It is important in that not controlling it ourselves is a symptom of loss of sovereignty but other than limiting unskilled low wage workers and benefit seekers, which as I understand it existing EEA/EFTA rules allow Im not that keen on much change.
Like Christopher 'Barkworth' Booker, I am disappointed by the eager enthusiasm for hard Brexit by politicians who should know better
Yes. That (immigration) was the hardest rule we had to accept, certainly in terms of explaining how a sovereign nation could not control its own borders. And as we saw, in the end it was inexplicable.
I too am not too much bothered about it, but it was a legitimate concern. I fear the PB solution (EEA/EFTA) would not greatly please a large number of Brexiteers and, for better or worse, I think that is informing those ministers, whether they are personally hard Brexiters themselves or not.
@MrHarryCole: 90 mins of howling about Brexit. LibDems off to a brisk start here in Brighton this morning. They're flying EU flags in the hall.
Well in fairness there is a significant number of potential voters who were disappointed about the result and a medium sized minority who have shown a reluctance to move on or accept it and a smallish number of those who might think that this is the most important thing and influence their vote, some of whom, maybe, don't vote Lib Dem already.
Actually, as a strategy that did not work out as well as I thought.
The trouble with the LibDems wrapping themselves in EU flags is that it's fighting a war which is over. What are they going to do when Brexit has happened? Become a campaign for rejoining?
I do wonder if they've really thought this one through.
Well the leavers fought a guerilla war for 40 years.
@MrHarryCole: 90 mins of howling about Brexit. LibDems off to a brisk start here in Brighton this morning. They're flying EU flags in the hall.
Well in fairness there is a significant number of potential voters who were disappointed about the result and a medium sized minority who have shown a reluctance to move on or accept it and a smallish number of those who might think that this is the most important thing and influence their vote, some of whom, maybe, don't vote Lib Dem already.
Actually, as a strategy that did not work out as well as I thought.
The trouble with the LibDems wrapping themselves in EU flags is that it's fighting a war which is over. What are they going to do when Brexit has happened? Become a campaign for rejoining?
I do wonder if they've really thought this one through.
Not to mention those people probably already vote lib dem already, at most the 5-10% of the electorate.
Tim Farron called them 'Tiny Trots' lol (don't know whether he stole that from a newspaper but funny anyway).
The Media does seem to be having a field day, some people are calling it a modern day Hitler Youth, I wouldn't go anywhere near that far (though with rising antisemitism in the Labour movement since Corbyn and momentum took over who knows) but still it is worrying.
@MrHarryCole: 90 mins of howling about Brexit. LibDems off to a brisk start here in Brighton this morning. They're flying EU flags in the hall.
Well in fairness there is a significant number of potential voters who were disappointed about the result and a medium sized minority who have shown a reluctance to move on or accept it and a smallish number of those who might think that this is the most important thing and influence their vote, some of whom, maybe, don't vote Lib Dem already.
Actually, as a strategy that did not work out as well as I thought.
If they're planning on relaunching as the anti-Ukip then it's not likely to get them very far. The original thing polled 12.6% of the national vote in the last General Election, and there are an awful lot more people in the country who loathe the EU than love it.
True but the same applies to the Lib Dems and they are starting from an even lower base (I think).
"A fortnight ago, Labour lost a council by-election in Sheffield, dropping 10 percentage points not long after a Corbyn rally there.
"A local MP, Angela Smith, pointed out that 40 Corbyn supporters were manning a Momentum phone bank in the town the night before. Instead of helping get Labour voters to the polls, they were calling Labour members for the leadership election."
"A fortnight ago, Labour lost a council by-election in Sheffield, dropping 10 percentage points not long after a Corbyn rally there.
"A local MP, Angela Smith, pointed out that 40 Corbyn supporters were manning a Momentum phone bank in the town the night before. Instead of helping get Labour voters to the polls, they were calling Labour members for the leadership election."
Mosborough (Sheffield), and Tupton (NE Derbyshire) - I actually live between these wards, slightly worried I might get elected next year
@MrHarryCole: 90 mins of howling about Brexit. LibDems off to a brisk start here in Brighton this morning. They're flying EU flags in the hall.
Well in fairness there is a significant number of potential voters who were disappointed about the result and a medium sized minority who have shown a reluctance to move on or accept it and a smallish number of those who might think that this is the most important thing and influence their vote, some of whom, maybe, don't vote Lib Dem already.
Actually, as a strategy that did not work out as well as I thought.
The trouble with the LibDems wrapping themselves in EU flags is that it's fighting a war which is over. What are they going to do when Brexit has happened? Become a campaign for rejoining?
I do wonder if they've really thought this one through.
I think one thing that is crystal clear already is that if we had a second referendum it would not be nearly as close as the first one. Things in the EU are not moving to the remainers' advantage and Brexit has proven relatively benign. On here we appreciate that this just might be because it has not happened yet but the change in tone on the part of many who considered it a potential disaster in advance is marked.
@MrHarryCole: 90 mins of howling about Brexit. LibDems off to a brisk start here in Brighton this morning. They're flying EU flags in the hall.
Well in fairness there is a significant number of potential voters who were disappointed about the result and a medium sized minority who have shown a reluctance to move on or accept it and a smallish number of those who might think that this is the most important thing and influence their vote, some of whom, maybe, don't vote Lib Dem already.
Actually, as a strategy that did not work out as well as I thought.
The trouble with the LibDems wrapping themselves in EU flags is that it's fighting a war which is over. What are they going to do when Brexit has happened? Become a campaign for rejoining?
I do wonder if they've really thought this one through.
I think one thing that is crystal clear already is that if we had a second referendum it would not be nearly as close as the first one. Things in the EU are not moving to the remainers' advantage and Brexit has proven relatively benign. On here we appreciate that this just might be because it has not happened yet but the change in tone on the part of many who considered it a potential disaster in advance is marked.
I was an, ahem, enthusiastic Remainer. If there was another vote I'm pretty sure I'd vote Out. Aside from anything else, what practical terms could we get having hokey-cokeyed so violently? They would, rightly, laugh in our face and send us our take-it-or-leave it orders. Don't like them? What are you going to do about it? Leave?
According to the BBC, you cannot be a tech firm without a helter-skelter in the office.
FFS.
And fancy office chairs, and funny colour carpets. I hit the off switch. The BBC's technology reporting is dire. Patronising, trivial, and slow.
I find the whole "tech hub" idea a bit outdated. It seems more like a leftover from the dot-com era. There are so many X as a Service things for businesses now, that increasingly many startups are infrastructure-free and remote working from day one. If the BBC was much cop at tech reporting they would talk about things like that. The one place that they might do so is Peter Day's programme In Business on Radio 4, he is often streets ahead of his colleagues.
It's not the BBC that worries me but the government (both parties). Britain does not do tech well. We pat ourselves on the back because Tim B-L invented the web (which he did, sort-of, but while working for the publicly-funded CERN in Switzerland.
Computers -- the first electronic computers were British but hushed up by the government for espionage reasons, despite half MI5 and three-quarters of MI6 having snow on their boots.
RSA and public key cryptography -- crucial for ecommerce -- invented here and hushed up, leaving the Americans to make their fortunes after reinventing it.
A hard Brexit is not necessarily inconsistent with essential immigration. It just means that we fix our rules here in what we perceive to be our interests (rightly or wrongly) without an agreement not to apply them to the rest of the EU or to give them priority over other potential immigrants from elsewhere.
Personally, I have pretty much given up on the idea of us having a comprehensive agreement with the EU prior to our departure. It is just too difficult and is going to take too long. We need to focus on a number of specific areas and get an interim arrangement that will work as stand alones. We can then add to those arrangements over time in the same way as Switzerland does.
I rather think I agree with you, Mr. L (which doubtless a great relief for you). I doubt a comprehensive agreement with the EU is possible at the present time, not least because the mood inside the EU is such that they are not inclined to give us one and are not going to be capable of forming a united negotiating position even if they were.
If I were to put money on it, I'd say that a reversion to WTO rules and no deal on the special access to the UK for EU citizens is the most likely outcome. Later, as you say, we can sort out some specific deals but in slow time and when tempers have cooled.
According to the BBC, you cannot be a tech firm without a helter-skelter in the office.
FFS.
And fancy office chairs, and funny colour carpets. I hit the off switch. The BBC's technology reporting is dire. Patronising, trivial, and slow.
I find the whole "tech hub" idea a bit outdated. It seems more like a leftover from the dot-com era. There are so many X as a Service things for businesses now, that increasingly many startups are infrastructure-free and remote working from day one. If the BBC was much cop at tech reporting they would talk about things like that. The one place that they might do so is Peter Day's programme In Business on Radio 4, he is often streets ahead of his colleagues.
It's not the BBC that worries me but the government (both parties). Britain does not do tech well. We pat ourselves on the back because Tim B-L invented the web (which he did, sort-of, but while working for the publicly-funded CERN in Switzerland.
Computers -- the first electronic computers were British but hushed up by the government for espionage reasons, despite half MI5 and three-quarters of MI6 having snow on their boots.
RSA and public key cryptography -- crucial for ecommerce -- invented here and hushed up, leaving the Americans to make their fortunes after reinventing it.
Hmmmm: I'm pretty sure Adi Shamir was either at MIT or the Weizmann when he invented RSA
@MrHarryCole: 90 mins of howling about Brexit. LibDems off to a brisk start here in Brighton this morning. They're flying EU flags in the hall.
Well in fairness there is a significant number of potential voters who were disappointed about the result and a medium sized minority who have shown a reluctance to move on or accept it and a smallish number of those who might think that this is the most important thing and influence their vote, some of whom, maybe, don't vote Lib Dem already.
Actually, as a strategy that did not work out as well as I thought.
The trouble with the LibDems wrapping themselves in EU flags is that it's fighting a war which is over. What are they going to do when Brexit has happened? Become a campaign for rejoining?
I do wonder if they've really thought this one through.
The war is only just beginning, this is the phoney war period. Brexit means so many different things to those who voted for it, wait until we start to see what May decides. Then watch the Tories fall out with each other.
According to the BBC, you cannot be a tech firm without a helter-skelter in the office.
FFS.
And fancy office chairs, and funny colour carpets. I hit the off switch. The BBC's technology reporting is dire. Patronising, trivial, and slow.
I find the whole "tech hub" idea a bit outdated. It seems more like a leftover from the dot-com era. There are so many X as a Service things for businesses now, that increasingly many startups are infrastructure-free and remote working from day one. If the BBC was much cop at tech reporting they would talk about things like that. The one place that they might do so is Peter Day's programme In Business on Radio 4, he is often streets ahead of his colleagues.
It's not the BBC that worries me but the government (both parties). Britain does not do tech well. We pat ourselves on the back because Tim B-L invented the web (which he did, sort-of, but while working for the publicly-funded CERN in Switzerland.
Computers -- the first electronic computers were British but hushed up by the government for espionage reasons, despite half MI5 and three-quarters of MI6 having snow on their boots.
RSA and public key cryptography -- crucial for ecommerce -- invented here and hushed up, leaving the Americans to make their fortunes after reinventing it.
Hmmmm: I'm pretty sure Adi Shamir was either at MIT or the Weizmann when he invented RSA
Yes MIT, but Ellis and Cocks invented it at GCHQ 5 years before he did.
Edit: this is not necessarily an example of the British being generally useless at tech. It is widely thought that the NSA (their GCHQ) knows all sorts of fascinating cryptographic stuff that they keep to themselves.
@MrHarryCole: 90 mins of howling about Brexit. LibDems off to a brisk start here in Brighton this morning. They're flying EU flags in the hall.
Well in fairness there is a significant number of potential voters who were disappointed about the result and a medium sized minority who have shown a reluctance to move on or accept it and a smallish number of those who might think that this is the most important thing and influence their vote, some of whom, maybe, don't vote Lib Dem already.
Actually, as a strategy that did not work out as well as I thought.
The trouble with the LibDems wrapping themselves in EU flags is that it's fighting a war which is over. What are they going to do when Brexit has happened? Become a campaign for rejoining?
I do wonder if they've really thought this one through.
I think one thing that is crystal clear already is that if we had a second referendum it would not be nearly as close as the first one. Things in the EU are not moving to the remainers' advantage and Brexit has proven relatively benign. On here we appreciate that this just might be because it has not happened yet but the change in tone on the part of many who considered it a potential disaster in advance is marked.
The electorate generally wanted the powers of EU institutions over nation states to be diminished, so Brexit, while not the first choice of the electorate, is still going with the grain of public opinion, rather than against it.
@MrHarryCole: 90 mins of howling about Brexit. LibDems off to a brisk start here in Brighton this morning. They're flying EU flags in the hall.
Well in fairness there is a significant number of potential voters who were disappointed about the result and a medium sized minority who have shown a reluctance to move on or accept it and a smallish number of those who might think that this is the most important thing and influence their vote, some of whom, maybe, don't vote Lib Dem already.
Actually, as a strategy that did not work out as well as I thought.
The trouble with the LibDems wrapping themselves in EU flags is that it's fighting a war which is over. What are they going to do when Brexit has happened? Become a campaign for rejoining?
I do wonder if they've really thought this one through.
I think one thing that is crystal clear already is that if we had a second referendum it would not be nearly as close as the first one. Things in the EU are not moving to the remainers' advantage and Brexit has proven relatively benign. On here we appreciate that this just might be because it has not happened yet but the change in tone on the part of many who considered it a potential disaster in advance is marked.
Agree with that. My father and my brother voted remain despite being instinctively Eurosceptic. Said it was because they feared for the consequences. Both have since told me they wish now they'd voted to leave. I think millions fit into this category. We've always been a rather Eurosceptic country. We got the vote we did because Project Fear was a success. If Dave and Ozzy had been fighting hard for a Leave vote they'd have got a landslide.
@MrHarryCole: 90 mins of howling about Brexit. LibDems off to a brisk start here in Brighton this morning. They're flying EU flags in the hall.
Well in fairness there is a significant number of potential voters who were disappointed about the result and a medium sized minority who have shown a reluctance to move on or accept it and a smallish number of those who might think that this is the most important thing and influence their vote, some of whom, maybe, don't vote Lib Dem already.
Actually, as a strategy that did not work out as well as I thought.
The trouble with the LibDems wrapping themselves in EU flags is that it's fighting a war which is over. What are they going to do when Brexit has happened? Become a campaign for rejoining?
I do wonder if they've really thought this one through.
I think one thing that is crystal clear already is that if we had a second referendum it would not be nearly as close as the first one. Things in the EU are not moving to the remainers' advantage and Brexit has proven relatively benign. On here we appreciate that this just might be because it has not happened yet but the change in tone on the part of many who considered it a potential disaster in advance is marked.
The die is cast - we're leaving, and I feel sorry for REMAINers who haven't accepted that yet. Although I didn't support the decision, I am heartened by the British people's ability to call the big shots right........Meanwhile we'll keep on 'muddling through' - much to the fury of our cartesian neighbours......
@MrHarryCole: 90 mins of howling about Brexit. LibDems off to a brisk start here in Brighton this morning. They're flying EU flags in the hall.
Well in fairness there is a significant number of potential voters who were disappointed about the result and a medium sized minority who have shown a reluctance to move on or accept it and a smallish number of those who might think that this is the most important thing and influence their vote, some of whom, maybe, don't vote Lib Dem already.
Actually, as a strategy that did not work out as well as I thought.
The trouble with the LibDems wrapping themselves in EU flags is that it's fighting a war which is over. What are they going to do when Brexit has happened? Become a campaign for rejoining?
I do wonder if they've really thought this one through.
I think one thing that is crystal clear already is that if we had a second referendum it would not be nearly as close as the first one. Things in the EU are not moving to the remainers' advantage and Brexit has proven relatively benign. On here we appreciate that this just might be because it has not happened yet but the change in tone on the part of many who considered it a potential disaster in advance is marked.
The EU Army being a fib has been debunked along with rate rises, housepricecrash, emergency budget blah blah. Project Fear is bust.
New York City. He's an idiot because lots of people were injured - perhaps he meant "killed", but combined with his "what is Aleppo?" interview, it does suggest someone who doesn't follow the news closely.
New York City. He's an idiot because lots of people were injured - perhaps he meant "killed", but combined with his "what is Aleppo?" interview, it does suggest someone who doesn't follow the news closely.
Yes I know, that was a joke based on the Aleppo thing.
Agree with that. My father and my brother voted remain despite being instinctively Eurosceptic. Said it was because they feared for the consequences. Both have since told me they wish now they'd voted to leave. I think millions fit into this category. We've always been a rather Eurosceptic country. We got the vote we did because Project Fear was a success. If Dave and Ozzy had been fighting hard for a Leave vote they'd have got a landslide.
There seem to be quite a few Remainers now favouring Leave, but I can't say I have heard of any Leaver who now regrets their vote. It would be interesting to see some updated polling on the issue, I would be surprised if there is any sign of Bremorse.
Further to my own comment I would be very interested to know what the PB Brains Trust would consider the essential areas for EU agreement prior to departure. I have been asked to draft a talk on the legal issues arising from Brexit and would welcome ideas as to what areas to concentrate on.
Possibilities include:
The European Patents Office. Member States include Switzerland and Turkey. Do we want to remain members? I would have thought yes.
The European Arrest Warrant. This came into force by a framework agreement in 2002. Do we want to continue with it on a bilateral basis? My guess is no although May was as fan as Home Secretary, but if not what would we look to replace it with in an age of increased anxiety about security and cross border crime?
The Common Fisheries Policy. Almost certainly not but the issues it seeks to address about overfishing in the north sea will remain an issue. What might replace it?
The European Research Council. Important for funding of University research, especially where this takes place transnationally. I don't think membership of this would be possible even if we wished it but how do we seek to stop its funding being used to exclude our Universities from "frontier science"?
The European Customs Union. Turkey is of course a member. Do we want to be? Commits us to having common external tariffs with the EU so it would make new trade agreements almost impossible so I guess not. Likely to be a major factor in whatever negotiations we have about access to the Single Market.
The Single Passport. This has been discussed on here many times. The City wants this but may not be able to get it. If they don't what are our priorities?
I think at or near to the core of the argument was the perception of sovereignty by each side. Leave saw the meddling, the strictures, the outranking of any by "the EU" as egregious and intolerable. Remainers believed the UK was perfectly sovereign as it was, and had, as modern life dictates both on an individual and national level, entered into a mutually beneficial agreement which required some compromises but which in the end benefited the UK greatly. For these Remainers, sovereignty was never an issue (hence the illogical, to them, charge of being traitors) because they believed that agreeing to the set of rules in a club did not impinge on the notion of sovereignty or of actual sovereignty itself.
Surely the issue is that the rules of the agreement have changed beyond recognition since we signed up and we no longer have the power to stop new rules from being imposed on us even if we are against their introduction. The logical conclusion is that sovereignty within the EU is theoretical in that we have the power to leave and repeal the European Communities Act at any point, but while in the EU we are not able to stop the imposition of EU law and the supremacy of the ECJ over our own judiciary. We have turned that theory into practice by voting to leave, so yes ultimately we had sovereignty within the EU but it can only be exercised in one way, by leaving.
According to the BBC, you cannot be a tech firm without a helter-skelter in the office.
FFS.
And fancy office chairs, and funny colour carpets. I hit the off switch. The BBC's technology reporting is dire. Patronising, trivial, and slow.
I find the whole "tech hub" idea a bit outdated. It seems more like a leftover from the dot-com era. There are so many X as a Service things for businesses now, that increasingly many startups are infrastructure-free and remote working from day one. If the BBC was much cop at tech reporting they would talk about things like that. The one place that they might do so is Peter Day's programme In Business on Radio 4, he is often streets ahead of his colleagues.
It's not the BBC that worries me but the government (both parties). Britain does not do tech well. We pat ourselves on the back because Tim B-L invented the web (which he did, sort-of, but while working for the publicly-funded CERN in Switzerland.
Computers -- the first electronic computers were British but hushed up by the government for espionage reasons, despite half MI5 and three-quarters of MI6 having snow on their boots.
RSA and public key cryptography -- crucial for ecommerce -- invented here and hushed up, leaving the Americans to make their fortunes after reinventing it.
Hmmmm: I'm pretty sure Adi Shamir was either at MIT or the Weizmann when he invented RSA
Not sure the hushed up bit made much difference. Manchester uni built a computer after the war (late 1940s). Turing was involved with all his wartime knowledge. Ferranti, a UK company, was contracted by government to build a commercial version. The question is why it all went wrong after that, rather than worrying about MI5.
According to the BBC, you cannot be a tech firm without a helter-skelter in the office.
FFS.
And fancy office chairs, and funny colour carpets. I hit the off switch. The BBC's technology reporting is dire. Patronising, trivial, and slow.
I find the whole "tech hub" idea a bit outdated. It seems more like a leftover from the dot-com era. There are so many X as a Service things for businesses now, that increasingly many startups are infrastructure-free and remote working from day one. If the BBC was much cop at tech reporting they would talk about things like that. The one place that they might do so is Peter Day's programme In Business on Radio 4, he is often streets ahead of his colleagues.
It's not the BBC that worries me but the government (both parties). Britain does not do tech well. We pat ourselves on the back because Tim B-L invented the web (which he did, sort-of, but while working for the publicly-funded CERN in Switzerland.
Computers -- the first electronic computers were British but hushed up by the government for espionage reasons, despite half MI5 and three-quarters of MI6 having snow on their boots.
RSA and public key cryptography -- crucial for ecommerce -- invented here and hushed up, leaving the Americans to make their fortunes after reinventing it.
Hmmmm: I'm pretty sure Adi Shamir was either at MIT or the Weizmann when he invented RSA
Yes MIT, but Ellis and Cocks invented it at GCHQ 5 years before he did.
Edit: this is not necessarily an example of the British being generally useless at tech. It is widely thought that the NSA (their GCHQ) knows all sorts of fascinating cryptographic stuff that they keep to themselves.
Commercial exploitation is missing. The American government backs their tech companies with hidden subsidies, protectionism and tax breaks. Ours chokes off investment or leaves it to "the market" so anything that does not die prematurely is sold off to foreigners. Amstrad was the second-largest computer brand in Europe; Westland made helicopters; Jaguar made cars -- all now either dead or foreign-owned.
Further to my own comment I would be very interested to know what the PB Brains Trust would consider the essential areas for EU agreement prior to departure. I have been asked to draft a talk on the legal issues arising from Brexit and would welcome ideas as to what areas to concentrate on.
Possibilities include:
The European Patents Office. Member States include Switzerland and Turkey. Do we want to remain members? I would have thought yes.
The European Arrest Warrant. This came into force by a framework agreement in 2002. Do we want to continue with it on a bilateral basis? My guess is no although May was as fan as Home Secretary, but if not what would we look to replace it with in an age of increased anxiety about security and cross border crime?
The Common Fisheries Policy. Almost certainly not but the issues it seeks to address about overfishing in the north sea will remain an issue. What might replace it?
The European Research Council. Important for funding of University research, especially where this takes place transnationally. I don't think membership of this would be possible even if we wished it but how do we seek to stop its funding being used to exclude our Universities from "frontier science"?
The European Customs Union. Turkey is of course a member. Do we want to be? Commits us to having common external tariffs with the EU so it would make new trade agreements almost impossible so I guess not. Likely to be a major factor in whatever negotiations we have about access to the Single Market.
The Single Passport. This has been discussed on here many times. The City wants this but may not be able to get it. If they don't what are our priorities?
1. Probably, yes. 2. David Davis has said we might come to an agreement over this, I expect a bilateral extradition treaty on similar terms to the EAW is probably what we're looking at. 3. Definitely out of the CFP. 4. We will probably pay our way into Horizon 2020/2026 just as the Swiss have. 5. Extremely unlikely, though we may come to a US/Canada style deal for customs settlement in each other's territories. 6. I'm currently leaning towards no, but with a huge dose of equivalence for the next 5-7 years while we organise our external trade affairs.
It's not the BBC that worries me but the government (both parties). Britain does not do tech well. We pat ourselves on the back because Tim B-L invented the web (which he did, sort-of, but while working for the publicly-funded CERN in Switzerland.
Well yes the BBC's amateurish approach to technology journalism is probably in part due to the way we collectively view technology, and to an extent services in general. We still have this "making physical things is real work" mindset. Uncompetitive heavy industry and crap retailers get far more media attention than they should.
According to the BBC, you cannot be a tech firm without a helter-skelter in the office.
FFS.
And fancy office chairs, and funny colour carpets. I hit the off switch. The BBC's technology reporting is dire. Patronising, trivial, and slow.
I find the whole "tech hub" idea a bit outdated. It seems more like a leftover from the dot-com era. There are so many X as a Service things for businesses now, that increasingly many startups are infrastructure-free and remote working from day one. If the BBC was much cop at tech reporting they would talk about things like that. The one place that they might do so is Peter Day's programme In Business on Radio 4, he is often streets ahead of his colleagues.
It's not the BBC that worries me but the government (both parties). Britain does not do tech well. We pat ourselves on the back because Tim B-L invented the web (which he did, sort-of, but while working for the publicly-funded CERN in Switzerland.
Computers -- the first electronic computers were British but hushed up by the government for espionage reasons, despite half MI5 and three-quarters of MI6 having snow on their boots.
RSA and public key cryptography -- crucial for ecommerce -- invented here and hushed up, leaving the Americans to make their fortunes after reinventing it.
Hmmmm: I'm pretty sure Adi Shamir was either at MIT or the Weizmann when he invented RSA
Yes MIT, but Ellis and Cocks invented it at GCHQ 5 years before he did.
Edit: this is not necessarily an example of the British being generally useless at tech. It is widely thought that the NSA (their GCHQ) knows all sorts of fascinating cryptographic stuff that they keep to themselves.
It is certainly the case that GCHQ have done stuff in mathematics useful for cryptography that has never been published. Some of the mathematics Andres Wiles invented/discovered (according to your view of the philosophy of maths) in his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem had been discovered/invented by chaps at GCHQ years earlier. I am certain that there are lots of other examples that have never been allowed to become public knowledge, and quite right too.
Further to my own comment I would be very interested to know what the PB Brains Trust would consider the essential areas for EU agreement prior to departure. I have been asked to draft a talk on the legal issues arising from Brexit and would welcome ideas as to what areas to concentrate on.
Possibilities include:
The European Patents Office. Member States include Switzerland and Turkey. Do we want to remain members? I would have thought yes.
The European Arrest Warrant. This came into force by a framework agreement in 2002. Do we want to continue with it on a bilateral basis? My guess is no although May was as fan as Home Secretary, but if not what would we look to replace it with in an age of increased anxiety about security and cross border crime?
The Common Fisheries Policy. Almost certainly not but the issues it seeks to address about overfishing in the north sea will remain an issue. What might replace it?
The European Research Council. Important for funding of University research, especially where this takes place transnationally. I don't think membership of this would be possible even if we wished it but how do we seek to stop its funding being used to exclude our Universities from "frontier science"?
The European Customs Union. Turkey is of course a member. Do we want to be? Commits us to having common external tariffs with the EU so it would make new trade agreements almost impossible so I guess not. Likely to be a major factor in whatever negotiations we have about access to the Single Market.
The Single Passport. This has been discussed on here many times. The City wants this but may not be able to get it. If they don't what are our priorities?
1. Probably, yes. 2. David Davis has said we might come to an agreement over this, o expect a bilateral extradition treaty on somilar terms to the EAW is probably what we're looking at. 3. Definitely out of the CFP. 4. We will probably pay our way into Horizon 2020/2026 just as the Swiss have. 5. Extremely unlikely, though we may come to a US/Canada style deal for customs settlement in each other's territories. 6. I'm currently leaning towards no, but with a huge dose of equivalence for the next 5-7 years while we organise our external trade affairs.
The Single Passport is an interesting one. As usual @cyclefree's comments have been very informative. The reality is that London is the financial centre of the EU. Excluding themselves from some of those services in the hope that they become available indigenously seems to me to be a considerable risk to EU competitiveness, especially for big exporters like Germany. But politicians interested in the local opportunities often miss the bigger picture.
Can you think of any other areas? It was not intended to be a definitive list.
The European Arrest Warrant. This came into force by a framework agreement in 2002. Do we want to continue with it on a bilateral basis? My guess is no although May was as fan as Home Secretary, but if not what would we look to replace it with in an age of increased anxiety about security and cross border crime?
There is much to object to about the EAW, but it's the only game in town. The idea that we could negotiate separate agreements with individual EU states is fantasy, so I suspect that we are pretty much stuck with the EAW whether we like it or. Perhaps, though, we could negotiate some protections for UK citizens in terms of better supervision by the UK courts.
The Common Fisheries Policy. Almost certainly not but the issues it seeks to address about overfishing in the north sea will remain an issue. What might replace it?
We don't need to be in the CFP. It could be replaced with a bilateral EU/UK agreement.
The European Research Council. Important for funding of University research, especially where this takes place transnationally. I don't think membership of this would be possible even if we wished it but how do we seek to stop its funding being used to exclude our Universities from "frontier science"?
I think we can and should remain part of this, at least as some kind of associate member.
The European Customs Union. Turkey is of course a member. Do we want to be? Commits us to having common external tariffs with the EU so it would make new trade agreements almost impossible so I guess not. Likely to be a major factor in whatever negotiations we have about access to the Single Market.
If we're in the Customs Union, we can't enter into trade agreements outside the EU. So I think it's a non-starter.
The Single Passport. This has been discussed on here many times. The City wants this but may not be able to get it. If they don't what are our priorities?
It would be very nice to have it, but I don't think we'll be able to achieve that aim. It's not the end of the world, we'll probably be able to rely on 'equivalence', which will give us some access. That means some damage to the City, but I think we'll have to accept that.
Incidentally, on financial passporting, Moody's say we could manage without it:
Simon Ainsworth, Senior Vice President at Moody’s, says:
“In particular, we consider that the third country equivalence provisions contained within the incoming MIFID 2 EU directive may provide firms with an alternative means of accessing the single market. The complexity of (quickly) unwinding the status quo and a desire to minimise the initial impact on European domiciled banks will likely lead to the preservation of most cross-border rights to undertake business.”
LOL at those claiming Trots Tots is just like the scouts....I know what else was just like the scouts, the Hitler Youth, and they weren't big fans of the Jews either.
The Single Passport is an interesting one. As usual @cyclefree's comments have been very informative. The reality is that London is the financial centre of the EU. Excluding themselves from some of those services in the hope that they become available indigenously seems to me to be a considerable risk to EU competitiveness, especially for big exporters like Germany. But politicians interested in the local opportunities often miss the bigger picture.
Can you think of any other areas? It was not intended to be a definitive list.
I think the EU hoping for import substitution in financial services is as fanciful as the UK hoping for import substitution for semi-manufactured goods. Neither the EU no UK are suited to replacing them. At least not easily. Business lost in London may not automatically go to Frankfurt, banks may decide it's not worth the hassle at all and locate in a light touch regulatory region and do their business from there. It's one of the reason the government may need to reform the FCA.
The other major area is probably foreign policy. EU foreign policy has no teeth if it isn't backed by two major military powers. Leaving it to the unreliable French to police EU foreign policy may leave the EU looking very weak. Its an area where I expect a non-binding bilateral treaty for military and foreign policy co-operation will come forward.
We already have 'Momentum Kids' - at least judging by the stuff my kids come home from the local High School with.
Last week it was the evils of Grammar schools, which both my 11 year old and 14 years old were lectured on in their form groups (under the guise of 'open discussion' - it clearly wasn't seeing as they both came home fully assured that they were without question a totally evil idea).
@tnewtondunn: No10: "The recommissioning of the Royal Yacht Britannia is not on the agenda". A thousand ageing hearts are broken.
Realistically it never was. AIUI it runs on a type of oil the Royal Navy no longer uses - one of the reasons it wasn't used in the Falklands war, despite its supposed additional role as a hospital ship.....
We already have 'Momentum Kids' - at least judging by the stuff my kids come home from the local High School with.
Last week it was the evils of Grammar schools, which both my 11 year old and 14 years old were lectured on in their form groups (under the guise of 'open discussion' - it clearly wasn't seeing as they both came home fully assured that they were without question a totally evil idea).
I hope you have lodged a complaint with the governors of the school. Teachers need to teach not preach.
Comments
The stupidity amused me so much I wasn't even annoyed.
Lay the top two (Murray/Farah)
A few moments of silence, followed by a splash and applause. Truly awesome radio
That said, the Clarkson pretence just made things worse. I didn't even make it through the intro. I don't want to be shouted at by a second rate Clarkson impersonator.
https://twitter.com/AdamRamsay/status/777632684013158400
http://news.sky.com/story/momentum-kids-jeremy-corbyns-backers-launch-childrens-wing-10584487
How.
About.
No.
Most winningest TV series ever:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Game_of_Thrones#2016
While they are unlikely to win, events dear boy, events, mean you cant entirely rule it out and then we would find ourselves in a slightly more polite version of the Pol Pot regime.
/personalities into an almost identical format.
As an ex-Aberdonian I always liked schnorrer as an insult.
"Yes, Donald Trump is implicated in that unraveling, cavalierly undermining decades worth of social and political certainties with his rapid-fire Twitter account and persona that only the borough of Queens can produce. But so is Bernie Sanders. And so is Brexit...
If you listen closely to Trump, you’ll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech—without which identity politics is inconceivable—must be repudiated...
These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided us toward, siren-like, since 1989. That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may at times be, leads us toward: A future where states matter. A future where people are citizens, working together toward (bourgeois) improvement of their lot. His ideas do not yet fully cohere. They are a bit too much like mental dust that has yet to come together. But they can come together. And Trump is the first American candidate to bring some coherence to them, however raucous his formulations have been.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/donald-trump-ideas-2016-214244#ixzz4Kh9lzpht
Lib Dems love the euro-sausage.
Actually, as a strategy that did not work out as well as I thought.
I am a little disappointed that immigration is being seen as so important. It is important in that not controlling it ourselves is a symptom of loss of sovereignty but other than limiting unskilled low wage workers and benefit seekers, which as I understand it existing EEA/EFTA rules allow Im not that keen on much change.
Like Christopher 'Barkworth' Booker, I am disappointed by the eager enthusiasm for hard Brexit by politicians who should know better
But it was Fifth Gear with a bigger budget -- half a dozen presenters with no obvious chemistry borrowing ideas from the previous year's Top Gear.
This chart gives an indication of changes in supply & demand for jobs https://t.co/dBKUu1EN1U #UnchartedTerritory https://t.co/XOOdNSzJBS
Joshua Rozenberg
Why has Martin McGuinness been exercising the Royal Prerogative? https://t.co/tGwkdjL0eX
I do wonder if they've really thought this one through.
The BBC picked up a couple of Emmys (Emmies?) for Sherlock, and ITV for Downton.
Personally, I have pretty much given up on the idea of us having a comprehensive agreement with the EU prior to our departure. It is just too difficult and is going to take too long. We need to focus on a number of specific areas and get an interim arrangement that will work as stand alones. We can then add to those arrangements over time in the same way as Switzerland does.
I too am not too much bothered about it, but it was a legitimate concern. I fear the PB solution (EEA/EFTA) would not greatly please a large number of Brexiteers and, for better or worse, I think that is informing those ministers, whether they are personally hard Brexiters themselves or not.
No reason we can't rejoin in 2057 ^_~
The Media does seem to be having a field day, some people are calling it a modern day Hitler Youth, I wouldn't go anywhere near that far (though with rising antisemitism in the Labour movement since Corbyn and momentum took over who knows) but still it is worrying.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/19/the-nasty-party-is-led-by-corbyn--and-he-isnt-listening-to-voter/
"A fortnight ago, Labour lost a council by-election in Sheffield, dropping 10 percentage points not long after a Corbyn rally there.
"A local MP, Angela Smith, pointed out that 40 Corbyn supporters were manning a Momentum phone bank in the town the night before. Instead of helping get Labour voters to the polls, they were calling Labour members for the leadership election."
#Florida @UpshotNYT/@SienaResearch Head-2-Head Poll:
Clinton 43 (Tie)
Trump 43
https://t.co/1OGG8fBNgc
He's glad no one was hurt in NYC bombing
FFS
https://youtu.be/ssn0gMQz6k8
Computers -- the first electronic computers were British but hushed up by the government for espionage reasons, despite half MI5 and three-quarters of MI6 having snow on their boots.
RSA and public key cryptography -- crucial for ecommerce -- invented here and hushed up, leaving the Americans to make their fortunes after reinventing it.
Breaking now- #NewJersey raid taking place in bldg w halal food shop after bombs discovered nearby in backpack @foxandfriends
If I were to put money on it, I'd say that a reversion to WTO rules and no deal on the special access to the UK for EU citizens is the most likely outcome. Later, as you say, we can sort out some specific deals but in slow time and when tempers have cooled.
Edit: this is not necessarily an example of the British being generally useless at tech. It is widely thought that the NSA (their GCHQ) knows all sorts of fascinating cryptographic stuff that they keep to themselves.
Possibilities include:
The European Patents Office. Member States include Switzerland and Turkey. Do we want to remain members? I would have thought yes.
The European Arrest Warrant. This came into force by a framework agreement in 2002. Do we want to continue with it on a bilateral basis? My guess is no although May was as fan as Home Secretary, but if not what would we look to replace it with in an age of increased anxiety about security and cross border crime?
The Common Fisheries Policy. Almost certainly not but the issues it seeks to address about overfishing in the north sea will remain an issue. What might replace it?
The European Research Council. Important for funding of University research, especially where this takes place transnationally. I don't think membership of this would be possible even if we wished it but how do we seek to stop its funding being used to exclude our Universities from "frontier science"?
The European Customs Union. Turkey is of course a member. Do we want to be? Commits us to having common external tariffs with the EU so it would make new trade agreements almost impossible so I guess not. Likely to be a major factor in whatever negotiations we have about access to the Single Market.
The Single Passport. This has been discussed on here many times. The City wants this but may not be able to get it. If they don't what are our priorities?
- They're Republicans who were considering voting for you before they heard you speak, Gary.
2. David Davis has said we might come to an agreement over this, I expect a bilateral extradition treaty on similar terms to the EAW is probably what we're looking at.
3. Definitely out of the CFP.
4. We will probably pay our way into Horizon 2020/2026 just as the Swiss have.
5. Extremely unlikely, though we may come to a US/Canada style deal for customs settlement in each other's territories.
6. I'm currently leaning towards no, but with a huge dose of equivalence for the next 5-7 years while we organise our external trade affairs.
Can you think of any other areas? It was not intended to be a definitive list.
Simon Ainsworth, Senior Vice President at Moody’s, says:
“In particular, we consider that the third country equivalence provisions contained within the incoming MIFID 2 EU directive may provide firms with an alternative means of accessing the single market. The complexity of (quickly) unwinding the status quo and a desire to minimise the initial impact on European domiciled banks will likely lead to the preservation of most cross-border rights to undertake business.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/sep/19/stock-markets-oil-rally-central-banks-fed-boj-meetings-business-live
11.29
The other major area is probably foreign policy. EU foreign policy has no teeth if it isn't backed by two major military powers. Leaving it to the unreliable French to police EU foreign policy may leave the EU looking very weak. Its an area where I expect a non-binding bilateral treaty for military and foreign policy co-operation will come forward.
Last week it was the evils of Grammar schools, which both my 11 year old and 14 years old were lectured on in their form groups (under the guise of 'open discussion' - it clearly wasn't seeing as they both came home fully assured that they were without question a totally evil idea).