Boris would be a bloody disaster. Even if he's a effective econdaries.
Corbyn would be even worse and Boris at least has charisma
If you aim for second place and solely defence you get third and losses. I may disagree with Corbyn and Momentum but at least they always aim to win and campaign hard which is more than can be said for some defeatist Tory whingers!
Corbyn being even worse is a good reason not to pick Boris, who could trash the Tory brand for years. Yes, I know it's had a dodgy run over the last couple of years but even if Strong and Stable looks a bit tattered, it was at least clearly the intent and to the extent that it's not been achieved, that was down to individual failings - the selection was based on sound reasoning. Picking Boris would just be a roll of the dice and there'd be no mitigation if the number comes up wrong. Corbyn being worse than Boris is the best reason for picking the best person to keep Corbyn out.
Re 'aiming for second', I remember 2001 and the strategic target list, which aimed at getting Labour's majority ugh.
It is for me and the public prefer Boris to any other Tory and that is key. Boris also knows how to beat leftwingers as Livingstone discovered.
There is a difference between careful targeting and defeatism, if you take the line Corbyn cannot be stopped he may well not be
Boris beat Ken in a race (or two races) to which he was suited. Leading a party and a government is very different from standing for and acting as mayor. Yes, Boris is 'popular' now (though I suspect that the numbers are in large part name recognition and they're not great anyway), but I'm sure that would change once he was in office. He's hardly shown himself to be ready for the top job given his performance at the FO.
Who said Corbyn can't be stopped? All I said was that there seems to be a lot of complacency that he will be.
And Corbyn has? Boris has rather more executive experience than him as for name recognition Hammond and Gove have almost as much as him and poll significantly worse
Chirac of course was Mayor of Paris before he became President of France
I also expect Boris would call a general election soon after taking over
I was very similar. I was very much on the fence and still am to some extent. I could have perhaps just about swallowed the EU as it was, but it was very clear from the renegotiation the EU was going to keep on integrating and they wouldn't suffer the British staying out of that. The EU army and EU taxes suggested by Macron the other day make me feel I was right.
Any remaining doubts I had about us leaving the EU — I didn't have many left — have been eliminated by the recent pronouncements by Juncker and Macron. They wish to create an EU that I would never want the UK to be a member of.
That was what was claim I'm a fan of Cameron, but if that was a good deal, he did a shit job selling it, and the EU did a great job undermining any faith it would be worth anything.
yeah, shoulda, woulda, coulda.
"Given the track record of the Eside the EU. Yeah - well sovereignty is important in being able to define and negotiate terms and deals that are good for the country.
Yes I reckoned we could get a better deal outside the whole organisation - what you can even ask for can be restricted if you are within something, rather than without, even if being without will come with additional issues. I might be proven wrong, and I will throw myself before others in regret if in the long term we are shown to have made a great mistake, but there's nothing to regret in explaining the distinction between being a hardcore hard brexit supporter and those who felt almost pushed into it. All equally culpable, no doubt, but its worthwhile making the point not least because what we as a country are all debating now is what sort of position we might like to get now, and whether one is a hardliner or not is pretty critical. Nor is there anything wrong with disagreeing with your analysis that what some reluctant leavers wanted was exactly what was offered. I think you are wrong about that, frankly - so many previously loyal Tories disagreed with Cameron about what he had managed to obtain that I find it improbable to say the least it was as amazing as you claim.
Fair enough - but as we are seeing getting anything resembling the same deal while outside, let alone a better one, is proving challenging.
I don't think in the long term people will notice, that said. They never notice 2p on a packet of fags (although somehow since I were a lad fags have become extraordinarily expensive). People won't notice the £100m not being invested in Mansfield. People won't notice the extra 12 minutes that are spent on administrative measures for processes that were previously frictionless. People won't for sure notice these in the aggregate forecast £4,300 diminution per household in their wealth by (was it?) 2022.
But that doesn't mean that that stuff doesn't have a cost. We voted ourselves to be poorer for the sake of some nebulous idea of sovereignty which in most cases was actually because people don't like foreigners.
Dave's deal addressed the very issues that many people ( @SeanT for example) say were important - sovereignty, the City, etc.
So yes we may see in the long term or, more likely, people will have forgotten all about it.
It is amazing how 94.46% of conversations here on PB come down to the Leavers saying:
"Oh if only we could somehow have an associate membership type of thing...it's quite clear the EU was going down a political route which we don't want to join them on...why weren't we offered some kind of opt out of that while keeping the benefits of the single market...while we're at it, we would have needed to protect our financial services industry also...plus as you all here on PB know, as a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
It really wasn't. I remember being unable to scroll through the document to get to the important stuff... it was because I'd reached the bottom of it already.
Please, go back now and read it and you'll find nothing but window dressing. It's why it was never mentioned ever again.
In one of the referendum documentaries, the BBC reported that when Cameron came back from Brussels in early 2016, and summoned the Cabinet, and read out the "deal", it was received with a terrible deathly silence, from eurosceptics and europhiles, all round the table.
They - the Conservative Cabinet - knew even then, and from that moment, that the deal was a dud. Unsellable. A piece of dreck. Even the most Remainery of them were expecting a whole lot more.
Cameron fucked it up. Royally.
One of Cameron's many basic errors was that everyone knew he was going to recommend a remain vote right from the start. No one, least of all the EU people he was negotiating with, thought there was any chance whatsoever of him recommending leave. So he had no leverage and accordingly got a crap deal.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
Problems regarding implementation need to be dealt with but the principle is sound
Poll tax revisited?
The reverse, ensuring you do not lose all your benefits if you do a few hours a week work under UC is the complete opposite of the poll tax
But what if you not get anything because of the bureaucracy ?
Any change has teething problems but rolling benefits into one should in reality simplify things longer term
It is amazins a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't blockquote>
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
That was what was claim .
yeah, shoulda, woulda, coulda.
"Given .
Nor
One of the things that pushed me over the line to Leave was Cameron's shitty deal, it just reinforced the nausea provoked by the fraudulence of the EU, the endless ignored referendums, the smuggled Constitutions, the ludicrous parliament in two places which no one votes for. All of it, all of the whole smelly crappy odious insulting anti-democratic shebang that is the EU, and its underlying rottenness, was underlined by Cameron's feeble fibs about his pathetic Deal.
Unlike you, my heart was for Leave, and my head for Remain, and my heart won.
ie no real reason for voting Leave except the immortal what are you rebelling against what have you got/The Man.
I'm not sure. The Remain argument I understand is what I believe underlines Richard Nabavi's one.
It goes something like this: we would far rather be a fully independent major global power, operating at parity with nations like China and the USA, with full regulatory, legal and trade independence, and beholden to no-one. Because of our history, we are both used to this and expect this.
But, nowadays, we represent <1% of a global human population of over 9 billion on a small island of the coast of north-west Europe. And we no longer have an Empire. It's an absolute outrage, because we're BRITISH goddamn it, but it's already happened. What the other 99%+ do to us matters, so the best we can do is mitigate our loss of influence.
The EU is f*cking crap (for all the reasons SeanT lists) and we'd dearly love to tell it to go f*ck itself, and do our own thing. But, being fully out might be even worse, because we're, nowadays, just not small and powerful enough to make it work, and we'd just get trodden on by everyone else in trade, regulation and geopolitics. So, in a world where we're no longer top-dog, it's about picking the least worst of a bunch of shit options. So I sullenly and reluctantly opt to Remain to get at least some say and protection amongst a group of wankers in a hostile world. Now, let me go and get pissed so I don't have to think about it.
It's not an argument I agree with, but I do understand it.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
The implementation phase has been shocking, my friend works for a jobcentre plus.
People are going weeks without getting paid because of the hold ups, the system isn't fit for purpose.
Plus paying housing benefits to those receiving the benefit and not to the landlord direct is also causing issues, both budgeting wise and landlords not getting paid on time.
And moving to a monthly payment system is also causing issues as they aren't giving budgeting advice to the recipients.
So it’s implementation teething issues rather than anything fundamental.
Needs to be slowed down and a hit squad assembled to iron out the kinks, rather than any fundamental changes made.
The monthly payment changes are pretty fundamental.
The hit squads have made it worse it seems.
Hmm, but they’re only rolling out for new claimants, rather than trying to move people across from the old regime now, is that correct?
Where are the delays coming from, is it the computer algorithms getting the payments wrong generally, or is it more edge cases than expected?
I believe they are moving existing claims to UC.
One of the cock ups I heard was they were pro-rating things like housing benefit on the changeover date and not realising that landlords only accept PCM payments.
They also seemed to think it was a good idea that the payment go to one person if it was a multi-claim household/family.
I dmazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Beismiss.
It rear again.
Not even wrong.
1. Financial Services - It gave protections to the non-eurozone countries (and to the eurozone ones) and gave us an opt-out on SSM/SRM (we are in any case implementing CRD-IV).
2. Competitivenesss - pretty all over the place - an undertaking to enact a "burden reduction implementation mechanism". Dontcha love the EU.
3. Sovereignty - "the references to ever closer union do not apply to the UK"
4. "Social benefits and free movement" - ie immigration to the likes of you. Quite badly, tinkered around the edges with the emergency brake and child benefits. Nothing to satisfy the anti-foreigner vote.
So in conclusion, on all the important matters save immigration the deal was very good. But of course I'm sure you are a big fan of immigration.
1. Financial Services - It reiterated protections that the UK already had eg. opt-out on SSM/SRM
2. Competitiveness - This is the window dressing I referred to
3. Sovereignty - This didn't amend the treaty it was non-binding and the language of ever closer union is far more important as a symbol than legally.
4. "Social benefits and free movement" - The tinkering addressed an issue that didn't exist so of course it wasn't addressing the real problem. The issue was never about benefits.
So in conclusion the renegotiation resulted in absolutely nothing of real substance. The fact that no treaty change was required to achieve any of this should make this quite apparent. Plus, the fact it was dismissed by pretty much everyone and swept under the rug as soon as possible.
Who exactly are you arguing for?
The City received protections which you say already existed (which of course they did, because they were for Eurozone countries, cf. the fiscal compact). But it enshrined it in an agreement, and would have given leeway for the UK to challenge decisions we believed were "unfair" (eg. Euro clearing).
On sovereignty the no ever closer union was, in the light of the EU's guiding principles, a very great deal indeed. It would have allowed us to opt out of this and that, having termed it an ever closer union measure.
And as for social benefits and free movement, well of course it didn't address the real problem. The real problem is that within the EU we have to accept free movement of people and a whole bunch of people didn't like that.
It is amazing how 94.46% of conversations here on PB come down to the Leavers saying:
"Oh if only we could somehow have an associate membership type of thing...it's quite clear the EU was going down a political route which we don't want to join them on...why weren't we offered some kind of opt out of that while keeping the benefits of the single market...while we're at it, we would have needed to protect our financial services industry also...plus as you all here on PB know, as a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
It really wasn't. I remember being unable to scroll through the document to get to the important stuff... it was because I'd reached the bottom of it already.
Please, go back now and read it and you'll find nothing but window dressing. It's why it was never mentioned ever again.
In one of the referendum documentaries, the BBC reported that when Cameron came back from Brussels in early 2016, and summoned the Cabinet, and read out the "deal", it was received with a terrible deathly silence, from eurosceptics and europhiles, all round the table.
They - the Conservative Cabinet - knew even then, and from that moment, that the deal was a dud. Unsellable. A piece of dreck. Even the most Remainery of them were expecting a whole lot more.
Cameron fucked it up. Royally.
One of Cameron's many basic errors was that everyone knew he was going to recommend a remain vote right from the start. No one, least of all the EU people he was negotiating with, thought there was any chance whatsoever of him recommending leave. So he had no leverage and accordingly got a crap deal.
Truly a precursor to Brexit.
Cameron's main error was that he was not asking for anything in particular, so long as he got something.
It is amazing how 94.46% of conversations here on PB come down to the Leavers saying:
"Oh if only we could somehow have an associate membership type of thing...it's quite clear the EU was going down a political route which we don't want to join them on...why weren't we offered some kind of opt out of that while keeping the benefits of the single market...while we're at it, we would have needed to protect our financial services industry also...plus as you all here on PB know, as a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
It really wasn't. I remember being unable to scroll through the document to get to the important stuff... it was because I'd reached the bottom of it already.
Please, go back now and read it and you'll find nothing but window dressing. It's why it was never mentioned ever again.
In one of the referendum documentaries, the BBC reported that when Cameron came back from Brussels in early 2016, and summoned the Cabinet, and read out the "deal", it was received with a terrible deathly silence, from eurosceptics and europhiles, all round the table.
They - the Conservative Cabinet - knew even then, and from that moment, that the deal was a dud. Unsellable. A piece of dreck. Even the most Remainery of them were expecting a whole lot more.
Cameron fucked it up. Royally.
One of Cameron's many basic errors was that everyone knew he was going to recommend a remain vote right from the start. No one, least of all the EU people he was negotiating with, thought there was any chance whatsoever of him recommending leave. So he had no leverage and accordingly got a crap deal.
Truly a precursor to Brexit.
It is one of modern Britain's ironies that Theresa May and David Cameron each were suited to the other's negotiating job. David Cameron had an essentially transactional negotiation to undertake, a role for which Theresa May is much better suited temperamentally. Theresa May has a relational negotiation to undertake, which David Cameron would have understood how to carry out far better.
It is amazing how 94.46% of conversations here on PB come down to the Leavers saying:
"Oh if only we could somehow have an associate membership type of thing...it's quite clear the EU was going down a political route which we don't want to join them on...why weren't we offered some kind of opt out of that while keeping the benefits of the single market...while we're at it, we would have needed to protect our financial services industry also...plus as you all here on PB know, as a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
It really wasn't. I remember being unable to scroll through the document to get to the important stuff... it was because I'd reached the bottom of it already.
Please, go back now and read it and you'll find nothing but window dressing. It's why it was never mentioned ever again.
In one of the referendum documentaries, the BBC reported that when Cameron came back from Brussels in early 2016, and summoned the Cabinet, and read out the "deal", it was received with a terrible deathly silence, from eurosceptics and europhiles, all round the table.
They - the Conservative Cabinet - knew even then, and from that moment, that the deal was a dud. Unsellable. A piece of dreck. Even the most Remainery of them were expecting a whole lot more.
Cameron fucked it up. Royally.
One of Cameron's many basic errors was that everyone knew he was going to recommend a remain vote right from the start. No one, least of all the EU people he was negotiating with, thought there was any chance whatsoever of him recommending leave. So he had no leverage and accordingly got a crap deal.
Truly a precursor to Brexit.
Ironically, he was guilty of what the EU is: arrogance, complacency and not taking the people seriously.
It is amazins a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
That was what was claim I'm a fan of Cameron, but if that was a good deal, he did a shit job selling it, and the EU did a great job undermining any faith it would be worth anything.
yeah, shoulda, woulda, coulda.
"Given the track record of the EU" of which we were a part. But you reckon we will get a better deal outside the whole organisation.
Oh but we have sovereignty outside the EU. Yeah - well sovereignty is important in being able to define and negotiate terms and deals that are good for the country.
Nor is there aagreed with Cameron about what he had managed to obtain that I find it improbable to say the least it was as amazing as you claim.
Ditto, kinda
I was a pretunderlined by Cameron's feeble fibs about his pathetic Deal.
Unlike you, my heart was for Leave, and my head for Remain, and my heart won.
ie no real reason for voting Leave except the immortal what are you rebelling against what have you got/The Man.
Fuck off, old bean. The EU is grotesque. A democratic fraud. They actually smuggled through a Constitution that two nations voted down in referendums - simply by changing its name.
It was an insult to an ancient, sovereign, democratic nation like the UK that we should submit to its ever growing powers, and to its unwanted laws, cooked up by people we could neither elect or dismiss.
LEAVE was always the correct choice, morally speaking.
The only thing making me pause, and consider REMAIN, was personal greed, pretty much. The price of my London flat.
Unlike you I put my country before myself.
As I say no real reason.
And of course we were always sovereign, just that it didn't always feel like it. Especially so, I would imagine, if you were out of your head for most of the time.
I was very similar. I was very much on the fence and still am to some extent. I could have perhaps just about swallowed the EU as it was, but it was very clear from the renegotiation the EU was going to keep on integrating and they wouldn't suffer the British staying out of that. The EU army and EU taxes suggested by Macron the other day make me feel I was right.
Any remaining doubts I had about us leaving the EU — I didn't have many left — have been eliminated by the recent pronouncements by Juncker and Macron. They wish to create an EU that I would never want the UK to be a member of.
There's a reluctant Leaver argument, as well as a reluctant Remainer one, which is that in a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea, you'd nervously plump for the latter.
Hold your nose and your breath, jump in and hope for the best.
I dmazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Beismiss.
It rear again.
So in conclusion, on all the important matters save immigration the deal was very good. But of course I'm sure you are a big fan of immigration.
1. Financial Services - It reiterated protections that the UK already had eg. opt-out on SSM/SRM
2. Competitiveness - This is the window dressing I referred to
3. Sovereignty - This didn't amend the treaty it was non-binding and the language of ever closer union is far more important as a symbol than legally.
4. "Social benefits and free movement" - The tinkering addressed an issue that didn't exist so of course it wasn't addressing the real problem. The issue was never about benefits.
So in conclusion the renegotiation resulted in absolutely nothing of real substance. The fact that no treaty change was required to achieve any of this should make this quite apparent. Plus, the fact it was dismissed by pretty much everyone and swept under the rug as soon as possible.
Who exactly are you arguing for?
The City received protections which you say already existed (which of course they did, because they were for Eurozone countries, cf. the fiscal compact). But it enshrined it in an agreement, and would have given leeway for the UK to challenge decisions we believed were "unfair" (eg. Euro clearing).
On sovereignty the no ever closer union was, in the light of the EU's guiding principles, a very great deal indeed. It would have allowed us to opt out of this and that, having termed it an ever closer union measure.
And as for social benefits and free movement, well of course it didn't address the real problem. The real problem is that within the EU we have to accept free movement of people and a whole bunch of people didn't like that.
I have just read a few articles again to refresh my memory. As I understand it, the City didn't get the protections Cameron wanted. Between the different drafts of the agreement, the language about the UK staying out of new EU banking laws was watered down. It made clear they wanted to make sure the language was not water tight. That was what caused Hollande to announce such a victory.
It is one of modern Britain's ironies that Theresa May and David Cameron each were suited to the other's negotiating job. David Cameron had an essentially transactional negotiation to undertake, a role for which Theresa May is much better suited temperamentally. Theresa May has a relational negotiation to undertake, which David Cameron would have understood how to carry out far better.
It's perhaps an error to take Theresa May at face value. If Brexit is primarily a negotiation of the UK with itself, she could be ideally suited to a duplicitous game of political manoeuvring and double-crossing where nobody knows what's real anymore.
I dmazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Beismiss.
It rear again.
So in conclusion, on all the important matters save immigration the deal was very good. But of course I'm sure you are a big fan of immigration.
1. Financial Services - It reiterated protections that the UK already had eg. opt-out on SSM/SRM
2. Competitiveness - This is the window dressing I referred to
3. Sovereignty - This didn't amend the treaty it was non-binding and the language of ever closer union is far more important as a symbol than legally.
4. "Social benefits and free movement" - The tinkering addressed an issue that didn't exist so of course it wasn't addressing the real problem. The issue was never about benefits.
So in conclusion the renegotiation resulted in absolutely nothing of real substance. The fact that no treaty change was required to achieve any of this should make this quite apparent. Plus, the fact it was dismissed by pretty much everyone and swept under the rug as soon as possible.
Who exactly are you arguing for?
The City received protections which you say already existed (which of course they did, because they were for Eurozone countries, cf. the fiscal compact). But it enshrined it in an agreement, and would have given leeway for the UK to challenge decisions we believed were "unfair" (eg. Euro clearing).
On sovereignty the no ever closer union was, in the light of the EU's guiding principles, a very great deal indeed. It would have allowed us to opt out of this and that, having termed it an ever closer union measure.
And as for social benefits and free movement, well of course it didn't address the real problem. The real problem is that within the EU we have to accept free movement of people and a whole bunch of people didn't like that.
I have just read a few articles again to refresh my memory. As I understand it, the City didn't get the protections Cameron wanted. Between the different drafts of the agreement, the language about the UK staying out of new EU banking laws was watered down. It made clear they wanted to make sure the language was not water tight. That was what caused Hollande to announce such a victory.
Which banking laws? Refresh my memory if you would.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
The implementation phase has been shocking, my friend works for a jobcentre plus.
People are going weeks without getting paid because of the hold ups, the system isn't fit for purpose.
Plus paying housing benefits to those receiving the benefit and not to the landlord direct is also causing issues, both budgeting wise and landlords not getting paid on time.
And moving to a monthly payment system is also causing issues as they aren't giving budgeting advice to the recipients.
So it’s implementation teething issues rather than anything fundamental.
Needs to be slowed down and a hit squad assembled to iron out the kinks, rather than any fundamental changes made.
The monthly payment changes are pretty fundamental.
The hit squads have made it worse it seems.
Hmm, but they’re only rolling out for new claimants, rather than trying to move people across from the old regime now, is that correct?
Where are the delays coming from, is it the computer algorithms getting the payments wrong generally, or is it more edge cases than expected?
There is more. The ticking bomb that will affect hundred of thousands, possibly millions, is the UC merger with working tax credit and child credit. People will lose out, some by £1000s a year.
Wiser Tories may have smelt gunpowder and heard a fuse in the distance.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
The implementation phase has been shocking, my friend works for a jobcentre plus.
People are going weeks without getting paid because of the hold ups, the system isn't fit for purpose.
Plus paying housing benefits to those receiving the benefit and not to the landlord direct is also causing issues, both budgeting wise and landlords not getting paid on time.
And moving to a monthly payment system is also causing issues as they aren't giving budgeting advice to the recipients.
So it’s implementation teething issues rather than anything fundamental.
Needs to be slowed down and a hit squad assembled to iron out the kinks, rather than any fundamental changes made.
The monthly payment changes are pretty fundamental.
The hit squads have made it worse it seems.
Hmm, but they’re only rolling out for new claimants, rather than trying to move people across from the old regime now, is that correct?
Where are the delays coming from, is it the computer algorithms getting the payments wrong generally, or is it more edge cases than expected?
I believe they are moving existing claims to UC.
One of the cock ups I heard was they were pro-rating things like housing benefit on the changeover date and not realising that landlords only accept PCM payments.
They also seemed to think it was a good idea that the payment go to one person if it was a multi-claim household/family.
The government has been trying to implement this for at least seven years and it's still not working.
In less than two years they have to design, specify and implement new systems for recording EU nationals, customs controls, etc etc etc. Won't happen.
It is amazins a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
That was what was claim I'm a fan of Cameron, but if that was a good deal, he did a shit job selling it, and the EU did a great job undermining any faith it would be worth anything.
yeah, shoulda, woulda, coulda.
"Given the track record of the EU" of which we were a part. But you reckon we will get a better deal outside the whole organisation.
Oh but we have sovereignty outside the EU. Yeah - well sovereignty is important in being able to define and negotiate terms and deals that are good for the country.
Nor is there aagreed with Cameron about what he had managed to obtain that I find it improbable to say the least it was as amazing as you claim.
Ditto, kinda
I was a pretunderlined by Cameron's feeble fibs about his pathetic Deal.
Unlike you, my heart was for Leave, and my head for Remain, and my heart won.
ie no real reason for voting Leave except the immortal what are you rebelling against what have you got/The Man.
Fuck off, old bean. The EU is grotesque. A democratic fraud. They actually smuggled through a Constitution that two nations voted down in referendums - simply by changing its name.
It was an insult to an ancient, sovereign, democratic nation like the UK that we should submit to its ever growing powers, and to its unwanted laws, cooked up by people we could neither elect or dismiss.
LEAVE was always the correct choice, morally speaking.
The only thing making me pause, and consider REMAIN, was personal greed, pretty much. The price of my London flat.
Unlike you I put my country before myself.
As I say no real reason.
And of course we were always sovereign, just that it didn't always feel like it. Especially so, I would imagine, if you were out of your head for most of the time.
SeanT has articulated a perfectly good reason.
You prioritise economics, he prioritises political and constitutional issues.
I dmazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Beismiss.
It rear again.
So in conclusion, on all the important matters save immigration the deal was very good. But of course I'm sure you are a big fan of immigration.
1. Financial Services - It reiterated protections that the UK already had eg. opt-out on SSM/SRM
2. Competitiveness - This is the window dressing I referred to
3. Sovereignty - This didn't amend the treaty it was non-binding and the language of ever closer union is far more important as a symbol than legally.
4. "Social benefits and free movement" - The tinkering addressed an issue that didn't exist so of course it wasn't addressing the real problem. The issue was never about benefits. Who exactly are you arguing for?
The City received protections which you say already existed (which of course they did, because they were for Eurozone countries, cf. the fiscal compact). But it enshrined it in an agreement, and would have given leeway for the UK to challenge decisions we believed were "unfair" (eg. Euro clearing).
On sovereignty the no ever closer union was, in the light of the EU's guiding principles, a very great deal indeed. It would have allowed us to opt out of this and that, having termed it an ever closer union measure.
And as for social benefits and free movement, well of course it didn't address the real problem. The real problem is that within the EU we have to accept free movement of people and a whole bunch of people didn't like that.
I have just read a few articles again to refresh my memory. As I understand it, the City didn't get the protections Cameron wanted. Between the different drafts of the agreement, the language about the UK staying out of new EU banking laws was watered down. It made clear they wanted to make sure the language was not water tight. That was what caused Hollande to announce such a victory.
Which banking laws? Refresh my memory if you would.
The single rulebook.
The final deal said " The single rulebook is to be applied by all credit institutions and other financial institutions in order to ensure the level-playing field within the internal market. "
Apparently the "other financial institutions" bit was particularly concerning. It was added by the French to make sure London hedge funds also came under the reach of EU regulation.
It is amazins a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't follow,the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Bemiss.
That was whaany faith it would be worth anything.
yeare good for the country.
Nor is there aagreed with Cameron about what he had managed to obtain that I find it improbable to say the least it was as amazing as you claim.
Ditto, kinda
I was a pretunderlined by Cameron's feeble fibs about his pathetic Deal.
Unlike you, my heart was for Leave, and my head for Remain, and my heart won.
ie no real reason for voting Leave except the immortal what are you rebelling against what have you got/The Man.
Fuck off, old bean. The EU is grotesque. A democratic fraud. They actually smuggled through a Constitution that two nations voted down in referendums - simply by changing its name.
It was an insult to an ancient, sovereign, democratic nation like the UK that we should submit to its ever growing powers, and to its unwanted laws, cooked up by people we could neither elect or dismiss.
LEAVE was always the correct choice, morally speaking.
The only thing making me pause, and consider REMAIN, was personal greed, pretty much. The price of my London flat.
Unlike you I put my country before myself.
As I say no real reason.
And of course we were always sovereign, just that it didn't always feel like it. Especially so, I would imagine, if you were out of your head for most of the time.
Yeah, we're so sovereign leaving the EU is just a doddle. Like flicking a switch. As we can see.
Make your bloody mind up.
Also, Wales is theoretically sovereign, i.e. it's assembly can call a referendum and leave the UK. But it isn't though, really, is it?
It's a part of the British state and its independence has been gently euthanised over centuries. Same would have happened to the UK if we'd stayed.
Huh? We are leaving, sunshine. It is a doddle. We've even completed the paperwork. March 2019. Now don't shoot the messenger if I say that the muppets running our Brexit are wholly inept. That's what you voted for. For these people to handle it all. But leaving we are so don't panic (v strange response, tbh).
Wales? No idea. I'll let the Welsh constitutional experts answer.
I think you are labouring under a misapprehension as to what and how modern, sovereign nations operate in this, our modern, complex world.
I think they operate like, ooh, Australia, or Japan, or Canada, or Switzerland, all of which are some of the richest, most advanced nations on earth, and all of which somehow - incredibly - manage to get by without being part of the EU.
Who cares about them? Delighted for them. They are sovereign and not part of the EU and we are sovereign and are part of the EU (for a bit longer). What killing point are you trying to make?
1. Financial Services - It gave protections to the non-eurozone countries (and to the eurozone ones) and gave us an opt-out on SSM/SRM (we are in any case implementing CRD-IV).
2. Competitivenesss - pretty all over the place - an undertaking to enact a "burden reduction implementation mechanism". Dontcha love the EU.
3. Sovereignty - "the references to ever closer union do not apply to the UK"
4. "Social benefits and free movement" - ie immigration to the likes of you. Quite badly, tinkered around the edges with the emergency brake and child benefits. Nothing to satisfy the anti-foreigner vote.
So in conclusion, on all the important matters save immigration the deal was very good. But of course I'm sure you are a big fan of immigration.
1. Financial Services - It reiterated protections that the UK already had eg. opt-out on SSM/SRM
2. Competitiveness - This is the window dressing I referred to
3. Sovereignty - This didn't amend the treaty it was non-binding and the language of ever closer union is far more important as a symbol than legally.
4. "Social benefits and free movement" - The tinkering addressed an issue that didn't exist so of course it wasn't addressing the real problem. The issue was never about benefits.
So in conclusion the renegotiation resulted in absolutely nothing of real substance. The fact that no treaty change was required to achieve any of this should make this quite apparent. Plus, the fact it was dismissed by pretty much everyone and swept under the rug as soon as possible.
Who exactly are you arguing for?
The City received protections which you say already existed (which of course they did, because they were for Eurozone countries, cf. the fiscal compact). But it enshrined it in an agreement, and would have given leeway for the UK to challenge decisions we believed were "unfair" (eg. Euro clearing).
On sovereignty the no ever closer union was, in the light of the EU's guiding principles, a very great deal indeed. It would have allowed us to opt out of this and that, having termed it an ever closer union measure.
And as for social benefits and free movement, well of course it didn't address the real problem. The real problem is that within the EU we have to accept free movement of people and a whole bunch of people didn't like that.
I'm arguing that the Bloomberg speech turned out to be a damp squib and the for a renegotiation to be a renegotiation you need to end up with something that is materially different from what you started with. It was fantastic theatre but it did not get anywhere close to the "fundamental, far-reaching change" that Cameron advocated in 2013.
I think you are labouring under a misapprehension as to what and how modern, sovereign nations operate in this, our modern, complex world.
I think they operate like, ooh, Australia, or Japan, or Canada, or Switzerland, all of which are some of the richest, most advanced nations on earth, and all of which somehow - incredibly - manage to get by without being part of the EU.
There are advantages and disadvantages to Remaining in the EU, just as there are to Leaving the EU.
There are plenty of rich and content nations far smaller, less powerful and less influential than us that exist perfectly happily outside the EU.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
The implementation phase has been shocking, my friend works for a jobcentre plus.
People are going weeks without getting paid because of the hold ups, the system isn't fit for purpose.
Plus paying housing benefits to those receiving the benefit and not to the landlord direct is also causing issues, both budgeting wise and landlords not getting paid on time.
And moving to a monthly payment system is also causing issues as they aren't giving budgeting advice to the recipients.
So it’s implementation teething issues rather than anything fundamental.
Needs to be slowed down and a hit squad assembled to iron out the kinks, rather than any fundamental changes made.
The monthly payment changes are pretty fundamental.
The hit squads have made it worse it seems.
Hmm, but they’re only rolling out for new claimants, rather than trying to move people across from the old regime now, is that correct?
Where are the delays coming from, is it the computer algorithms getting the payments wrong generally, or is it more edge cases than expected?
I believe they are moving existing claims to UC.
One of the cock ups I heard was they were pro-rating things like housing benefit on the changeover date and not realising that landlords only accept PCM payments.
They also seemed to think it was a good idea that the payment go to one person if it was a multi-claim household/family.
Okay, so they need to stop switching people over until they’ve got the kinks ironed out, which probably includes things like mutual agreement of switchover dates to accommodate wage packets, rent day etc.
The rather fluid modern definitions of a ‘household’ and ‘family’ are always difficult problems to resolve, but has been where the largest frauds have occurred under the current system. The rules around this need to be unambiguous and rigorously enforced.
I fear that this is going to provoke another round of diatribes against experts:
twitter.com/TheLancet/status/913640023249031168
Pretty much all of that is highly subjective eg even under the hardest of brexit, the likelihood that medical qualified staff from eu wouldnt be eligible for work permits is basically zero. They are the exemplar of the kind of people who are eligible for work permits under pretty much every western immigration system.
I'm arguing that the Bloomberg speech turned out to be a damp squib and the for a renegotiation to be a renegotiation you need to end up with something that is materially different from what you started with. It was fantastic theatre but it did not get anywhere close to the "fundamental, far-reaching change" that Cameron advocated in 2013.
Exactly the other way round, actually. It was a fundamental, far reaching change, but poor theatre.
I fear that this is going to provoke another round of diatribes against experts:
twitter.com/TheLancet/status/913640023249031168
Pretty much all of that is highly subjective eg even under the hardest of brexit, the likelihood that medical qualified staff from eu wouldnt be eligible for work permits is basically zero.
Yes, but its much more fun to believe that immigration controls mean no immigration
I fear that this is going to provoke another round of diatribes against experts:
twitter.com/TheLancet/status/913640023249031168
Pretty much all of that is highly subjective eg even under the hardest of brexit, the likelihood that medical qualified staff from eu wouldnt be eligible for work permits is basically zero. They are the exemplar of the kind of people who are eligible for work permits under pretty much every western immigration system.
However, medical qualified staff from outside the EU will be able to compete with them on a level playing field. Which is a good thing.
I'm arguing that the Bloomberg speech turned out to be a damp squib and the for a renegotiation to be a renegotiation you need to end up with something that is materially different from what you started with. It was fantastic theatre but it did not get anywhere close to the "fundamental, far-reaching change" that Cameron advocated in 2013.
Exactly the other way round, actually. It was a fundamental, far reaching change, but poor theatre.
Read up the thread, please demonstrate where this fundamental, far reaching change was to take place. In particular I'd like to know the treaty amendments that would have arisen.
Corbyn being even worse is a good reason not to pick Boris, who could trash the Tory brand for years. Yes, I know it's had a dodgy run over the last couple of years but even if Strong and Stable looks a bit tattered, it was at least clearly the intent and to the extent that it's not been achieved, that was down to individual failings - the selection was based on sound reasoning. Picking Boris would just be a roll of the dice and there'd be no mitigation if the number comes up wrong. Corbyn being worse than Boris is the best reason for picking the best person to keep Corbyn out.
Re 'aiming for second', I remember 2001 and the strategic target list, which aimed at getting Labour's majority ugh.
It is for me and the public prefer Boris to any other Tory and that is key. Boris also knows how to beat leftwingers as Livingstone discovered.
There is a difference between careful targeting and defeatism, if you take the line Corbyn cannot be stopped he may well not be
Boris beat Ken in a race (or two races) to which he was suited. Leading a party and a government is very different from standing for and acting as mayor. Yes, Boris is 'popular' now (though I suspect that the numbers are in large part name recognition and they're not great anyway), but I'm sure that would change once he was in office. He's hardly shown himself to be ready for the top job given his performance at the FO.
Who said Corbyn can't be stopped? All I said was that there seems to be a lot of complacency that he will be.
And Corbyn has? Boris has rather more executive experience than him as for name recognition Hammond and Gove have almost as much as him and poll significantly worse
Chirac of course was Mayor of Paris before he became President of France
I also expect Boris would call a general election soon after taking over
Corbyn is unlikely to get the chance to prove his incompetence in government before the next election; the next Tory leader will, assuming May is no longer in post. That difference matters hugely. Yes, Boris *might* call a snap election but I wouldn't bank on it after this year's experience, particularly if the economy is heading south.
As for Chirac, so what? My concern isn't that Boris doesn't have experience; it's that the evidence we have is that he blusters and ad libs rather than learns, he is not a team player, his ambition is for himself not the country (what *is* his vision for Britain?), he has proven untrustworthy many times and that he is just too interested in other things to devote himself to the drugery of governing effectively.
Read up the thread, please demonstrate where this fundamental, far reaching change was to take place. In particular I'd like to know the treaty amendments that would have arisen.
We've been through all this many times. On this thread @TOPPING has ably summed up the key points.
N the important matters save immigration the deal was very good. But of course I'm sure you are a big fan of immigration.
1. Financial Services - It reiterated protections that the UK already had eg. opt-out on SSM/SRM
2. Competitiveness - This is the window dressing I referred to
3. Sovereignty - This didn't amend the treaty it was non-binding and the language of ever closer union is far more important as a symbol than legally.
4. "Social benefits and free movement" - The tinkering addressed an issue that didn't exist so of course it wasn't addressing the real problem. The issue was never about benefits.
So in conclusion the renegotiation resulted in absolutely nothing of real substance. The fact that no treaty change was required to achieve any of this should make this quite apparent. Plus, the fact it was dismissed by pretty much everyone and swept under the rug as soon as possible.
Who exactly are you arguing for?
The City received protections which you say already existed (which of course they did, because they were for Eurozone countries, cf. the fiscal compact). But it enshrined it in an agreement, and would have given leeway for the UK to challenge decisions we believed were "unfair" (eg. Euro clearing).
On sovereignty the no ever closer union was, in the light of the EU's guiding principles, a very great deal indeed. It would have allowed us to opt out of this and that, having termed it an ever closer union measure.
And as for social benefits and free movement, well of course it didn't address the real problem. The real problem is that within the EU we have to accept free movement of people and a whole bunch of people didn't like that.
I'm arguing that the Bloomberg speech turned out to be a damp squib and the for a renegotiation to be a renegotiation you need to end up with something that is materially different from what you started with. It was fantastic theatre but it did not get anywhere close to the "fundamental, far-reaching change" that Cameron advocated in 2013.
Enshrining no ever closer union to me seems like answering a lot of the worries of those who disliked the grand EU project.
You say (as did Michael Gove, IIRC) that it was meaningless and that it would have been struck down/not encoded in treaty/etc. In which case yes, if you believed that Dave emerged from a meeting with the leaders of the EU27 and that they told him one thing but would do another, you were absolutely right to vote Leave. And to buy a large supply of tinfoil hats at Asda (or Lidl).
I fear that this is going to provoke another round of diatribes against experts:
twitter.com/TheLancet/status/913640023249031168
Pretty much all of that is highly subjective eg even under the hardest of brexit, the likelihood that medical qualified staff from eu wouldnt be eligible for work permits is basically zero.
True. But they might feel unwelcome and not want to come. Or demand much larger amounts of devalued £££ if they do. There are so many stories of EU nationals leaving the NHS that fears of staff shortages must be genuine.
I think it would be a terrible thing for country for such an extremist to be elected leader of a party that only a couple of years ago for millions of votes. Enough of the labour party, let's hope the same doesn't bestow ukip, as extremists of all forms are a bad thing.
...Gas , Electricity and Water performed pretty well in the public sector. ...
I must have imagined sitting in the dark three days a week.
That was imposed by Heath's Tory Government as a result of problems in the Coal industry. Are you seriously suggesting that private sector industries were unaffected by the 3 Day Week?
I fear that this is going to provoke another round of diatribes against experts:
twitter.com/TheLancet/status/913640023249031168
Pretty much all of that is highly subjective eg even under the hardest of brexit, the likelihood that medical qualified staff from eu wouldnt be eligible for work permits is basically zero. They are the exemplar of the kind of people who are eligible for work permits under pretty much every western immigration system.
"basically zero"
We shall, I guess, see. My own guess is rather higher than "basically zero". And in any case, that's not the relevant test. The test is whether the blighters are going to click their heels, salute and come when summoned by Brexit Britain. So far, they aren't coming:
I fear that this is going to provoke another round of diatribes against experts:
twitter.com/TheLancet/status/913640023249031168
Pretty much all of that is highly subjective eg even under the hardest of brexit, the likelihood that medical qualified staff from eu wouldnt be eligible for work permits is basically zero. They are the exemplar of the kind of people who are eligible for work permits under pretty much every western immigration system.
Under any immigration system at all, healthcare workers are pretty much first in line for visa allocations. There’s no way the government aren’t going to find doctors and nurses from EU and non-EU countries.
Sadly, more Remain-partisan bollocks, rather than anything constructive that might assist government to address the needs of their industry.
As for Chirac, so what? My concern isn't that Boris doesn't have experience; it's that the evidence we have is that he blusters and ad libs rather than learns, he is not a team player, his ambition is for himself not the country (what *is* his vision for Britain?), he has proven untrustworthy many times and that he is just too interested in other things to devote himself to the drugery of governing effectively.
The other key point is that he is mistrusted, detested and/or regarded as a complete buffoon by our European partners. Not ideal when we have an already incredibly difficult negotiation to do.
I fear that this is going to provoke another round of diatribes against experts:
twitter.com/TheLancet/status/913640023249031168
Pretty much all of that is highly subjective eg even under the hardest of brexit, the likelihood that medical qualified staff from eu wouldnt be eligible for work permits is basically zero. They are the exemplar of the kind of people who are eligible for work permits under pretty much every western immigration system.
"basically zero"
We shall, I guess, see. My own guess is rather higher than "basically zero". And in any case, that's not the relevant test. The test is whether the blighters are going to click their heels, salute and come when summoned by Brexit Britain. So far, they aren't coming:
"the introduction of English language testing for EU nurses is also likely to have played a role."
Seems pretty shocking there never was one.
Also the nhs is already staffed by loads of non-eu staff precisely because they meet the point based system (and a system which of course can always be tweaked to target certain professions).
There are loads of genuine criticisms of brexit, but immigration non-restrictions on doctors and nurses isnt one.
The single rulebook. The final deal said " The single rulebook is to be applied by all credit institutions and other financial institutions in order to ensure the level-playing field within the internal market. " Apparently the "other financial institutions" bit was particularly concerning. It was added by the French to make sure London hedge funds also came under the reach of EU regulation.
That sounds like a good idea. Why did The People vote against it?
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
That was what was claim I'm a fan of Cameron, but if that was a good deal, he did a shit job selling it, and the EU did a great job undermining any faith it would be worth anything.
yeah, shoulda, woulda, coulda.
"Given the track record of the EU" of which we were a part. But you reckon we will get a better deal outside the whole organisation.
Oh but we have sovereignty outside the EU. Yeah - well sovereignty is important in being able to define and negotiate terms and deals that are good for the country.
Nor is there aagreed with Cameron about what he had managed to obtain that I find it improbable to say the least it was as amazing as you claim.
Ditto, kinda
I was a pretunderlined by Cameron's feeble fibs about his pathetic Deal.
Unlike you, my heart was for Leave, and my head for Remain, and my heart won.
ie no real reason for voting Leave except the immortal what are you rebelling against what have you got/The Man.
Fuck off, old bean. The EU is grotesque. A democratic fraud. They actually smuggled through a Constitution that two nations voted down in referendums - simply by changing its name.
It was an insult to an ancient, sovereign, democratic nation like the UK that we should submit to its ever growing powers, and to its unwanted laws, cooked up by people we could neither elect or dismiss.
LEAVE was always the correct choice, morally speaking.
The only thing making me pause, and consider REMAIN, was personal greed, pretty much. The price of my London flat.
Unlike you I put my country before myself.
As I say no real reason.
And of course we were always sovereign, just that it didn't always feel like it. Especially so, I would imagine, if you were out of your head for most of the time.
It didn't feel like it because we weren't. Britain could not pass its own laws, set its own taxes or run its own courts in a whole range of areas other than in accordance with a higher power. That the UK had the theoretical power to leave this higher power is a technicality. One might as well say that Berkshire is sovereign because based on the Scottish precedent, if a Berkshire Independence movement sprang up, it could opt out of the UK.
I think it would be a terrible thing for country for such an extremist to be elected leader of a party that only a couple of years ago for millions of votes. Enough of the labour party, let's hope the same doesn't bestow ukip, as extremists of all forms are a bad thing.
Nah, it confirms what most have known about UKIP for years.
A party teaming full of racists and Islamophobes.
If you've been a member of UKIP or voted for them, this is your responsibility.
You think it is an accident that a party led by Farage, of the Naziesque Breaking Point posters, was seen as the ideal vehicle for someone like Anne-Marie Waters.
As for Chirac, so what? My concern isn't that Boris doesn't have experience; it's that the evidence we have is that he blusters and ad libs rather than learns, he is not a team player, his ambition is for himself not the country (what *is* his vision for Britain?), he has proven untrustworthy many times and that he is just too interested in other things to devote himself to the drugery of governing effectively.
The other key point is that he is mistrusted, detested and/or regarded as a complete buffoon by our European partners. Not ideal when we have an already incredibly difficult negotiation to do.
If even his wife doesn’t trust him, why should the rest of us?
That was imposed by Heath's Tory Government as a result of problems in the Coal industry. Are you seriously suggesting that private sector industries were unaffected by the 3 Day Week?
I am suggesting that the nationalised utilities were hardly 'performing quite well'. This is of course unsurprising: nationalised industries inevitably tend to become captured by producer interests, since the consumer has no say in the matter and politicians will always be very tempted to deal with short-terms problems by buying off the producer interests with taxpayers' money.
I fear that this is going to provoke another round of diatribes against experts:
twitter.com/TheLancet/status/913640023249031168
Pretty much all of that is highly subjective eg even under the hardest of brexit, the likelihood that medical qualified staff from eu wouldnt be eligible for work permits is basically zero. They are the exemplar of the kind of people who are eligible for work permits under pretty much every western immigration system.
It is precisely that ease of emigrating elsewhere that means staff are leaving. They can get jobs elsewhere.
My Trust has aboout 5000 nurses. We had 500 EU citizens in these posts. 300 have left over the last year, while previously we had good retention. Virtually no one joins now from the EU, and of course there are currently no visas required at all, or problems with registration of qualifications. Partly it is the economic growth in Mediterranean Europe, partly the depreciation of the pound, but mostly it is people feeling unwanted. So they go home.
But that is of course what the Brexiteers wanted. Get rid of the undercutting foreigners so that the sturdy British yeomen like myself can get paid more.
Just possibly, folk may discover that, like Uber, not just the rich elite benefit from cheap workers.
It didn't feel like it because we weren't. Britain could not pass its own laws, set its own taxes or run its own courts in a whole range of areas other than in accordance with a higher power. That the UK had the theoretical power to leave this higher power is a technicality. One might as well say that Berkshire is sovereign because based on the Scottish precedent, if a Berkshire Independence movement sprang up, it could opt out of the UK.
We had a shared agreement with like-minded nations and close trading partners. This involved some alignments and compromises (unlike, say, North Korea, which has relatively few such agreements).
We voluntarily (until last year, obvs) entered into all those terrible restrictions and affronts to our nation. Democratically-elected governments chose to do it. And now we have chosen to do it no longer. How much more effing sovereign do you want to be?
I don't believe you, for a moment, but even if this were true, it still makes Cameron a hapless failure as a politician.
On that point he screwed up, I agree. He was even criticised for not working hard enough on the deal, whereas in fact he worked incredibly hard. But you don't get gratitude in politics.
I fear that this is going to provoke another round of diatribes against experts:
twitter.com/TheLancet/status/913640023249031168
Pretty much all of that is highly subjective eg even under the hardest of brexit, the likelihood that medical qualified staff from eu wouldnt be eligible for work permits is basically zero. They are the exemplar of the kind of people who are eligible for work permits under pretty much every western immigration system.
It is precisely that ease of emigrating elsewhere that means staff are leaving. They can get jobs elsewhere.
My Trust has aboout 5000 nurses. We had 500 EU citizens in these posts. 300 have left over the last year, while previously we had good retention. Virtually no one joins now from the EU, and of course there are currently no visas required at all, or problems with registration of qualifications. Partly it is the economic growth in Mediterranean Europe, partly the depreciation of the pound, but mostly it is people feeling unwanted. So they go home.
But that is of course what the Brexiteers wanted. Get rid of the undercutting foreigners so that the sturdy British yeomen like myself can get paid more.
Just possibly, folk may discover that, like Uber, not just the rich elite benefit from cheap workers.
That is a better argument than the subjective (and wrong on the probability of what various options would mean in policy) lancet chart.
As for Chirac, so what? My concern isn't that Boris doesn't have experience; it's that the evidence we have is that he blusters and ad libs rather than learns, he is not a team player, his ambition is for himself not the country (what *is* his vision for Britain?), he has proven untrustworthy many times and that he is just too interested in other things to devote himself to the drugery of governing effectively.
The other key point is that he is mistrusted, detested and/or regarded as a complete buffoon by our European partners. Not ideal when we have an already incredibly difficult negotiation to do.
I always thought you two were the most stubborn of Tory Loyalists.... and here you are criticising your leadership! Tut, tut.....
In all seriousness, when is the Conservative Party going to come to its senses?
It is, after all, the party of government, for the time being anyway...
Read up the thread, please demonstrate where this fundamental, far reaching change was to take place. In particular I'd like to know the treaty amendments that would have arisen.
We've been through all this many times. On this thread @TOPPING has ably summed up the key points.
...and I showed how they were lacking in substance. It is not material change if you are merely restating the status quo.
That was imposed by Heath's Tory Government as a result of problems in the Coal industry. Are you seriously suggesting that private sector industries were unaffected by the 3 Day Week?
I am suggesting that the nationalised utilities were hardly 'performing quite well'. This is of course unsurprising: nationalised industries inevitably tend to become captured by producer interests, since the consumer has no say in the matter and politicians will always be very tempted to deal with short-terms problems by buying off the producer interests with taxpayers' money.
The ridiculous artificial privatised electricity 'market' we have now penalises those without the wherewithal to be switching supplier every year, diminishes our national productivity because of the effort wasted enouraging and administering switching, and in the main syphons off any profits abroad. A complete farce in pursuit of neoliberal dogma!
The ridiculous artificial privatised electricity 'market' we have now penalises those without the wherewithal to be switching supplier every year, diminishes our national productivity because of the effort wasted enouraging and administering switching, and in the main syphons off any profits abroad. A complete farce in pursuit of neoliberal dogma!
I fear that this is going to provoke another round of diatribes against experts:
twitter.com/TheLancet/status/913640023249031168
Pretty much all of that is highly subjective eg even under the hardest of brexit, the likelihood that medical qualified staff from eu wouldnt be eligible for work permits is basically zero. They are the exemplar of the kind of people who are eligible for work permits under pretty much every western immigration system.
Under any immigration system at all, healthcare workers are pretty much first in line for visa allocations. There’s no way the government aren’t going to find doctors and nurses from EU and non-EU countries.
Sadly, more Remain-partisan bollocks, rather than anything constructive that might assist government to address the needs of their industry.
Mr. Topping, we also voted for parties that promised a referendum on Lisbon and then reneged upon it, signing away vetoes without any democratic mandate to do so (indeed, quite the contrary).
If you remove every opportunity to slow things down or take back powers in certain areas, if you refuse to consult the people except with the nuclear option, if the response to a threat of us leaving is that the EU offers sod all, then what else can happen?
Most people, I firmly believe, liked the economics and not the politics of the EU. If there were a belief it could be reformed that would have massive majority support. Instead we pay a huge sum every year, but are outweighed permanently in QMV by the eurozone. We have a court set above us which is beyond the power of the British electorate yet can impose rulings.
The EU is not a bad idea. But it is a bad reality because it's driven by ideology, not pragmatism. The future of the UK may be rocky, but that would be the case if we'd voted to remain. We'd now be pressured to join the EU army (because the British people would've voted *for* the EU that would be taken as a green light for a great many things). Chatter would resume about joining the eurozone.
It may well be that, strategically, we're just in a spot where we have only options of varying badness. The advantage of leaving is that those who govern us will be responsible to us.
It is for me and the public prefer Boris to any other Tory and that is key. Boris also knows how to beat leftwingers as Livingstone discovered.
There is a difference between careful targeting and defeatism, if you take the line Corbyn cannot be stopped he may well not be
Boris beat Ken in a race (or two races) to which he was suited. Leading a party and a government is very different from standing for and acting as mayor. Yes, Boris is 'popular' now (though I suspect that the numbers are in large part name recognition and they're not great anyway), but I'm sure that would change once he was in office. He's hardly shown himself to be ready for the top job given his performance at the FO.
Who said Corbyn can't be stopped? All I said was that there seems to be a lot of complacency that he will be.
And Corbyn has? Boris has rather more executive experience than him as for name recognition Hammond and Gove have almost as much as him and poll significantly worse
Chirac of course was Mayor of Paris before he became President of France
I also expect Boris would call a general election soon after taking over
Corbyn is unlikely to get the chance to prove his incompetence in government before the next election; the next Tory leader will, assuming May is no longer in post. That difference matters hugely. Yes, Boris *might* call a snap election but I wouldn't bank on it after this year's experience, particularly if the economy is heading south.
As for Chirac, so what? My concern isn't that Boris doesn't have experience; it's that the evidence we have is that he blusters and ad libs rather than learns, he is not a team player, his ambition is for himself not the country (what *is* his vision for Britain?), he has proven untrustworthy many times and that he is just too interested in other things to devote himself to the drugery of governing effectively.
It won't be so easy for Boris - or anyone else - to call a snap election in this Parliament given the changed arithmetic. Corbyn is much better placed to say 'No' on the basis that he might be able to put together an alternative Government from the existing House of Commons.
I think it would be a terrible thing for country for such an extremist to be elected leader of a party that only a couple of years ago for millions of votes. Enough of the labour party, let's hope the same doesn't bestow ukip, as extremists of all forms are a bad thing.
Nah, it confirms what most have known about UKIP for years.
A party teaming full of racists and Islamophobes.
If you've been a member of UKIP or voted for them, this is your responsibility.
You think it is an accident that a party led by Farage, of the Naziesque Breaking Point posters, was seen as the ideal vehicle for someone like Anne-Marie Waters.
Coming from a Muslim background, I have never liked UKIP, but this seems unfair. That is like saying those of us who voted for Labour in the past are responsible for Corbyn.
Read up the thread, please demonstrate where this fundamental, far reaching change was to take place. In particular I'd like to know the treaty amendments that would have arisen.
We've been through all this many times. On this thread @TOPPING has ably summed up the key points.
...and I showed how they were lacking in substance. It is not material change if you are merely restating the status quo.
The status quo ante was that we sort of didn't like the way the the EU was going, we put our head in the sand over its quest for ever closer political, economic and social union and tried to ignore the measures that this threw up when they applied to us (eg. the fiscal compact).
The deal enshrined, formally, that no longer would this ever closer union would not apply to us as to be enshrined at the next treaty change. That is pretty bloody substantial.
But we are going in circles here so we'll just have to retain our positions (mine being the right one and yours the misguided one, of course).
That was imposed by Heath's Tory Government as a result of problems in the Coal industry. Are you seriously suggesting that private sector industries were unaffected by the 3 Day Week?
I am suggesting that the nationalised utilities were hardly 'performing quite well'. This is of course unsurprising: nationalised industries inevitably tend to become captured by producer interests, since the consumer has no say in the matter and politicians will always be very tempted to deal with short-terms problems by buying off the producer interests with taxpayers' money.
There was no great public demand to privatise the Gas, Water and Electricity industries which were generally making significant contributions to the Treasury coffers. It was done for entirely ideological reasons. Well others are entitled to play that game!
I think it would be a terrible thing for country for such an extremist to be elected leader of a party that only a couple of years ago for millions of votes. Enough of the labour party, let's hope the same doesn't bestow ukip, as extremists of all forms are a bad thing.
Nah, it confirms what most have known about UKIP for years.
A party teaming full of racists and Islamophobes.
If you've been a member of UKIP or voted for them, this is your responsibility.
You think it is an accident that a party led by Farage, of the Naziesque Breaking Point posters, was seen as the ideal vehicle for someone like Anne-Marie Waters.
Coming from a Muslim background, I have never liked UKIP, but this seems unfair. That is like saying those of us who voted for Labour in the past are responsible for Corbyn.
iirc there has been some entryism by the Far Right into UKIP membership.
Enough to swing the vote?
We'll see.
Gonna cost the tax payer a fortune in personal protection officers if she does win mind.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Topping (2), that assumes you can trust the EU. Like Blair did with CAP reform for throwing away half the rebate. How much did that cost us? £50bn? £100bn?
The City received protections which you say already existed (which of course they did, because they were for Eurozone countries, cf. the fiscal compact). But it enshrined it in an agreement, and would have given leeway for the UK to challenge decisions we believed were "unfair" (eg. Euro clearing).
On sovereignty the no ever closer union was, in the light of the EU's guiding principles, a very great deal indeed. It would have allowed us to opt out of this and that, having termed it an ever closer union measure.
And as for social benefits and free movement, well of course it didn't address the real problem. The real problem is that within the EU we have to accept free movement of people and a whole bunch of people didn't like that.
I'm arguing that the Bloomberg speech turned out to be a damp squib and the for a renegotiation to be a renegotiation you need to end up with something that is materially different from what you started with. It was fantastic theatre but it did not get anywhere close to the "fundamental, far-reaching change" that Cameron advocated in 2013.
Enshrining no ever closer union to me seems like answering a lot of the worries of those who disliked the grand EU project.
You say (as did Michael Gove, IIRC) that it was meaningless and that it would have been struck down/not encoded in treaty/etc. In which case yes, if you believed that Dave emerged from a meeting with the leaders of the EU27 and that they told him one thing but would do another, you were absolutely right to vote Leave. And to buy a large supply of tinfoil hats at Asda (or Lidl).
How is potentially eliminating ever closer union addressing the problems? At best you get to keep the status quo and if you were considering leaving the EU then you obviously were not content with the status quo.
Scepticism about the EU keeping to agreements is well founded - see Blair and CAP reform in return for surrendering part of the rebate. It's not a conspiracy theory if its well evidenced.
Again, if this deal really represented fundamental change why was it never mentioned again? Why didn't the Remain campaign trumpet this historic bargain?
That was imposed by Heath's Tory Government as a result of problems in the Coal industry. Are you seriously suggesting that private sector industries were unaffected by the 3 Day Week?
I am suggesting that the nationalised utilities were hardly 'performing quite well'. This is of course unsurprising: nationalised industries inevitably tend to become captured by producer interests, since the consumer has no say in the matter and politicians will always be very tempted to deal with short-terms problems by buying off the producer interests with taxpayers' money.
There was no great public demand to privatise the Gas, Water and Electricity industries which were generally making significant contributions to the Treasury coffers. It was done for entirely ideological reasons. Well others are entitled to play that game!
It was done for the entirely ideological reasons that Conservatives believe in boosting efficiency, cutting costs, and improving customer service. The policy has proved so successful that it was embraced by Labour in government and has been copied all over the world:
Of course there is no guarantee that we won't go back to the bad old ways; the fact that the leader of the opposition is an unreconstructed 1970s hard-left extremist suggests that it's by no means impossible for the progress to be reversed.
That was imposed by Heath's Tory Government as a result of problems in the Coal industry. Are you seriously suggesting that private sector industries were unaffected by the 3 Day Week?
I am suggesting that the nationalised utilities were hardly 'performing quite well'. This is of course unsurprising: nationalised industries inevitably tend to become captured by producer interests, since the consumer has no say in the matter and politicians will always be very tempted to deal with short-terms problems by buying off the producer interests with taxpayers' money.
There was no great public demand to privatise the Gas, Water and Electricity industries which were generally making significant contributions to the Treasury coffers. It was done for entirely ideological reasons. Well others are entitled to play that game!
The then publicly-owned British Gas splurged large amounts of dosh on grand research projects "for when the gas runs out" so that the profits didn't look too inflated. Even after privatisation, there were parallel research projects, one looking at the conversion of methane to hydrogen, and the other looking at the conversion of hydrogen into methane. Happy days.
There was no great public demand to privatise the Gas, Water and Electricity industries which were generally making significant contributions to the Treasury coffers. It was done for entirely ideological reasons. Well others are entitled to play that game!
It was done for the entirely ideological reasons that Conservatives believe in boosting efficiency, cutting costs, and improving customer service. The policy has proved so successful that it was embraced by Labour in government and has been copied all over the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_privatizations Of course there is no guarantee that we won't go back to the bad old ways; the fact that the leader of the opposition is an unreconstructed 1970s hard-left extremist suggests that it's by no means impossible for the progress to be reversed.
There were lots of disastrous Tory policies that subsequent Labour governments did not reverse. That proves nothing, except that Labour have a track record of being useless.
There were lots of disastrous Tory policies that subsequent Labour governments did not reverse. That proves nothing, except that Labour have a track record of being useless.
Fortunately the LibDems have a good track record on this, with the current party leader out-Thatchering Thatcher with his very well executed Royal Mail privatisation.
Read up the thread, please demonstrate where this fundamental, far reaching change was to take place. In particular I'd like to know the treaty amendments that would have arisen.
We've been through all this many times. On this thread @TOPPING has ably summed up the key points.
...and I showed how they were lacking in substance. It is not material change if you are merely restating the status quo.
The status quo ante was that we sort of didn't like the way the the EU was going, we put our head in the sand over its quest for ever closer political, economic and social union and tried to ignore the measures that this threw up when they applied to us (eg. the fiscal compact).
The deal enshrined, formally, that no longer would this ever closer union would not apply to us as to be enshrined at the next treaty change. That is pretty bloody substantial.
But we are going in circles here so we'll just have to retain our positions (mine being the right one and yours the misguided one, of course).
Displeasure with the EU was about a lot more than just the present direction of travel, though that played a significant part.
For the record, I support further integration of the EU, it needs it if the euro is ever to achieve real stability across the entirety of the eurozone. The EU should aim to become a federation of states, it should be a country in all but name, that is its destiny. I just don't believe that the UK fits within this structure.
The notion that we could perpetually remain on the periphery of such an organisation and wield influence was never going to come true. Sooner or later we would face the choice join in wholeheartedly or leave. Part of my decision to back leave was pre-empting this inevitable choice, thinking that given how difficult it would be to leave (I never harboured illusions that this would be easy) it was only set to get ever harder.
But hey, it's much more fun to suggest I wear a tin foil hat and base all of my decisions on immigration policy isn't it?
That was imposed by Heath's Tory Government as a result of problems in the Coal industry. Are you seriously suggesting that private sector industries were unaffected by the 3 Day Week?
I am suggesting that the nationalised utilities were hardly 'performing quite well'. This is of course unsurprising: nationalised industries inevitably tend to become captured by producer interests, since the consumer has no say in the matter and politicians will always be very tempted to deal with short-terms problems by buying off the producer interests with taxpayers' money.
There was no great public demand to privatise the Gas, Water and Electricity industries which were generally making significant contributions to the Treasury coffers. It was done for entirely ideological reasons. Well others are entitled to play that game!
The then publicly-owned British Gas splurged large amounts of dosh on grand research projects "for when the gas runs out" so that the profits didn't look too inflated. Even after privatisation, there were parallel research projects, one looking at the conversion of methane to hydrogen, and the other looking at the conversion of hydrogen into methane. Happy days.
Nowadays all the spare dosh goes into executive bonuses and dividends to foreign owners (I know that's not entirely true but that what you hear on the doorstep). Which is why there is no mileage for the Tories in defending privatised utilities.
Comments
Chirac of course was Mayor of Paris before he became President of France
I also expect Boris would call a general election soon after taking over
I don't think in the long term people will notice, that said. They never notice 2p on a packet of fags (although somehow since I were a lad fags have become extraordinarily expensive). People won't notice the £100m not being invested in Mansfield. People won't notice the extra 12 minutes that are spent on administrative measures for processes that were previously frictionless. People won't for sure notice these in the aggregate forecast £4,300 diminution per household in their wealth by (was it?) 2022.
But that doesn't mean that that stuff doesn't have a cost. We voted ourselves to be poorer for the sake of some nebulous idea of sovereignty which in most cases was actually because people don't like foreigners.
Dave's deal addressed the very issues that many people ( @SeanT for example) say were important - sovereignty, the City, etc.
So yes we may see in the long term or, more likely, people will have forgotten all about it.
Truly a precursor to Brexit.
One of the cock ups I heard was they were pro-rating things like housing benefit on the changeover date and not realising that landlords only accept PCM payments.
They also seemed to think it was a good idea that the payment go to one person if it was a multi-claim household/family.
The City received protections which you say already existed (which of course they did, because they were for Eurozone countries, cf. the fiscal compact). But it enshrined it in an agreement, and would have given leeway for the UK to challenge decisions we believed were "unfair" (eg. Euro clearing).
On sovereignty the no ever closer union was, in the light of the EU's guiding principles, a very great deal indeed. It would have allowed us to opt out of this and that, having termed it an ever closer union measure.
And as for social benefits and free movement, well of course it didn't address the real problem. The real problem is that within the EU we have to accept free movement of people and a whole bunch of people didn't like that.
And of course we were always sovereign, just that it didn't always feel like it. Especially so, I would imagine, if you were out of your head for most of the time.
Hold your nose and your breath, jump in and hope for the best.
I think you are labouring under a misapprehension as to what and how modern, sovereign nations operate in this, our modern, complex world.
Wiser Tories may have smelt gunpowder and heard a fuse in the distance.
In less than two years they have to design, specify and implement new systems for recording EU nationals, customs controls, etc etc etc. Won't happen.
https://twitter.com/TheLancet/status/913640023249031168
You prioritise economics, he prioritises political and constitutional issues.
The final deal said " The single rulebook is to be applied by all credit institutions and other financial institutions in order to ensure the level-playing field within the internal market. "
Apparently the "other financial institutions" bit was particularly concerning. It was added by the French to make sure London hedge funds also came under the reach of EU regulation.
Wales? No idea. I'll let the Welsh constitutional experts answer.
There are plenty of rich and content nations far smaller, less powerful and less influential than us that exist perfectly happily outside the EU.
The rather fluid modern definitions of a ‘household’ and ‘family’ are always difficult problems to resolve, but has been where the largest frauds have occurred under the current system. The rules around this need to be unambiguous and rigorously enforced.
As to the single rulebook, that consists of the SRM and the SSM. Together with the CRD-IV
Dave's deal achieved an opt out from the first two. The CRD-IV (Basel III) we are implementing anyway.
As for Chirac, so what? My concern isn't that Boris doesn't have experience; it's that the evidence we have is that he blusters and ad libs rather than learns, he is not a team player, his ambition is for himself not the country (what *is* his vision for Britain?), he has proven untrustworthy many times and that he is just too interested in other things to devote himself to the drugery of governing effectively.
You say (as did Michael Gove, IIRC) that it was meaningless and that it would have been struck down/not encoded in treaty/etc. In which case yes, if you believed that Dave emerged from a meeting with the leaders of the EU27 and that they told him one thing but would do another, you were absolutely right to vote Leave. And to buy a large supply of tinfoil hats at Asda (or Lidl).
We shall, I guess, see. My own guess is rather higher than "basically zero". And in any case, that's not the relevant test. The test is whether the blighters are going to click their heels, salute and come when summoned by Brexit Britain. So far, they aren't coming:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40248366
Sadly, more Remain-partisan bollocks, rather than anything constructive that might assist government to address the needs of their industry.
Seems pretty shocking there never was one.
Also the nhs is already staffed by loads of non-eu staff precisely because they meet the point based system (and a system which of course can always be tweaked to target certain professions).
There are loads of genuine criticisms of brexit, but immigration non-restrictions on doctors and nurses isnt one.
A party teaming full of racists and Islamophobes.
If you've been a member of UKIP or voted for them, this is your responsibility.
You think it is an accident that a party led by Farage, of the Naziesque Breaking Point posters, was seen as the ideal vehicle for someone like Anne-Marie Waters.
My Trust has aboout 5000 nurses. We had 500 EU citizens in these posts. 300 have left over the last year, while previously we had good retention. Virtually no one joins now from the EU, and of course there are currently no visas required at all, or problems with registration of qualifications. Partly it is the economic growth in Mediterranean Europe, partly the depreciation of the pound, but mostly it is people feeling unwanted. So they go home.
But that is of course what the Brexiteers wanted. Get rid of the undercutting foreigners so that the sturdy British yeomen like myself can get paid more.
Just possibly, folk may discover that, like Uber, not just the rich elite benefit from cheap workers.
It didn't feel like it because we weren't. Britain could not pass its own laws, set its own taxes or run its own courts in a whole range of areas other than in accordance with a higher power. That the UK had the theoretical power to leave this higher power is a technicality. One might as well say that Berkshire is sovereign because based on the Scottish precedent, if a Berkshire Independence movement sprang up, it could opt out of the UK.
We had a shared agreement with like-minded nations and close trading partners. This involved some alignments and compromises (unlike, say, North Korea, which has relatively few such agreements).
We voluntarily (until last year, obvs) entered into all those terrible restrictions and affronts to our nation. Democratically-elected governments chose to do it. And now we have chosen to do it no longer. How much more effing sovereign do you want to be?
In all seriousness, when is the Conservative Party going to come to its senses?
It is, after all, the party of government, for the time being anyway...
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/health/hospital-bosses-look-overseas-fill-472106
Getting visas for Non EU staff is not easy at present, what with Home Office restrictions and all.
If you remove every opportunity to slow things down or take back powers in certain areas, if you refuse to consult the people except with the nuclear option, if the response to a threat of us leaving is that the EU offers sod all, then what else can happen?
Most people, I firmly believe, liked the economics and not the politics of the EU. If there were a belief it could be reformed that would have massive majority support. Instead we pay a huge sum every year, but are outweighed permanently in QMV by the eurozone. We have a court set above us which is beyond the power of the British electorate yet can impose rulings.
The EU is not a bad idea. But it is a bad reality because it's driven by ideology, not pragmatism. The future of the UK may be rocky, but that would be the case if we'd voted to remain. We'd now be pressured to join the EU army (because the British people would've voted *for* the EU that would be taken as a green light for a great many things). Chatter would resume about joining the eurozone.
It may well be that, strategically, we're just in a spot where we have only options of varying badness. The advantage of leaving is that those who govern us will be responsible to us.
The deal enshrined, formally, that no longer would this ever closer union would not apply to us as to be enshrined at the next treaty change. That is pretty bloody substantial.
But we are going in circles here so we'll just have to retain our positions (mine being the right one and yours the misguided one, of course).
Enough to swing the vote?
We'll see.
Gonna cost the tax payer a fortune in personal protection officers if she does win mind.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Topping (2), that assumes you can trust the EU. Like Blair did with CAP reform for throwing away half the rebate. How much did that cost us? £50bn? £100bn?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_privatizations
Of course there is no guarantee that we won't go back to the bad old ways; the fact that the leader of the opposition is an unreconstructed 1970s hard-left extremist suggests that it's by no means impossible for the progress to be reversed.
Or failing that, "All"
Presumably this puts off Farage and Aaron Bank's plans for a new party?
For the record, I support further integration of the EU, it needs it if the euro is ever to achieve real stability across the entirety of the eurozone. The EU should aim to become a federation of states, it should be a country in all but name, that is its destiny. I just don't believe that the UK fits within this structure.
The notion that we could perpetually remain on the periphery of such an organisation and wield influence was never going to come true. Sooner or later we would face the choice join in wholeheartedly or leave. Part of my decision to back leave was pre-empting this inevitable choice, thinking that given how difficult it would be to leave (I never harboured illusions that this would be easy) it was only set to get ever harder.
But hey, it's much more fun to suggest I wear a tin foil hat and base all of my decisions on immigration policy isn't it?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/woman-gives-birth-on-train-arriving-at-st-pancras-a3249206.html
Best story re Henry Bolton I've found so far.