However divided we are, I don't think any UK electorate would entertain voting for a child molester because he was representing the "right side". Equally, I don't think you could ever be a leader here if you were to openly mock the handicapped.
We should be grateful for small mercies.
Alan Clark married his wife when she was under 16 and was elected multiple times, Cyril Smith was a child molester, maybe Peter Morrison and Greville Janner too (albeit the full allegations only emerged later).
Labour MPs pulled faces at Tory MP Paul Maynard who has cystic fibrosis
The problem for the Irish is though the "cliff" for the UK as it is called in some quarters is the "cliff" for them too, with the added problem that if they are the last road block to a comprehensive deal that does fail, they will not be the blue eyed boys of the EU, for all protestations of solidarity of the 27, and they will have earned the serious displeasure of the UK which wont end well for them given a big chunk (40%?) of their agricultural exports at the least come our way and a very very large proportion of their EU trade has to cross us to get to its markets. They also end up with a hard border which is precisely what they (nor anyone else too) wants.
[snip]
Probably good to buy shares in the Rosslare to France ferries (all two of them?), as the Irish stare down how vulnerable they really are if this goes badly sour, and look for way round it (literally!)
The border in the Irish Sea would be transparent and frictionless using the same technology proposed by the UK for the border between North and South so it's not a big deal logistically (allegedly).
Politically the DUP won't like it (slippery slope) though they do want an open border with the ROI.
Two options for the DUP.
1. Trenchantly oppose the border in the Irish Sea and risk ish Sea.
Membership of the customs union of itself shouldn't really be a red line - who really believes in those wonderful new trade deals. The problem is the regulatory convergence that the EU is insisting on, which would inevitably mean the UK following all EU legislation - hence, falling foul of the very legitimate 'sovereignty' red lines.
If you want to join EFTA then you cannot stay in the Customs Union. The two memberships are mutually exclusive because it would prevent EFTA negotiating their own trade deals.
That's right. We need to stay in the EEA including CU - but outside the political institutions to "respect" the EU Ref (unless there is a change of heart by the electorate).
I suspect that would have majority support inside and outside Parliament. There is only a fringe group who fulminate about the ECJ (or even know what it is) and immigration can be fudged/managed.
Edit: A very long transition would solve it. A very long transition.
Keeping free movement as now would not respect the Leave vote given Leave would not have got 52% without promising to end it.
Not providing the NHS with an extra £350 million a week would not respect the Leave vote given Leave would not have got 52% without promising to provide it.
It's not what the people of NI voted for - they voted for the UK to remain in the EU; not for NI to do so independently. Arguably, Ireland's actions, in pushing policies that would break up the unity of the UK, are of themselves a breach of at the very least the spirit of the GFA and perhaps the letter of it.
That is an absolutely grotesque distortion of Ireland's position. Ireland has stated very clearly that it's preferred outcome would be for the UK as a whole to remain in the single market and customs union and that any form of Brexit is bad for them.
Shame for them that it is not up to them, we're leaving. That's already been determined.
Mr. Rentool, I think waiting until after submissions were made before saying UK cities don't count (didn't Istanbul win one year?) was a bit dickish.
Cities which have been European city of culture without being in the EU or the EEA:
Krakòw 2000 Prague 2000 Istanbul 2010
All three of which are cities in nations that were at the time accession nations which makes them valid. We're not going to be an accession nation after we leave.
And yet people keep telling us that Turkey were never going to join the EU.
To be fair I think the European City of Culture is a typically twattish form of eating public money that the EU seem to love so I am certainly not exercised by this. I just love to see them tying themselves in knots trying to justify these decisions.
That's not right. We say that Turkey was *talking* about joining. Negotiating. That is very different from the act of actually joining.
And on the substantive point, European Capital of Culture is open to 'potential candidates for membership', which I think we can all agree Turkey was back in 2010.
Being a 'potential candidate' is a long way from 'joining'.
"Eligibility is open to cities in EU member states, in countries that are candidates or potential candidates for membership, or in countries that are part of the European Economic Area (EEA)[1] - an example of the latter being Stavanger in Norway, which was a European Capital of Culture in 2008."
That's right. We need to stay in the EEA including CU - but outside the political institutions to "respect" the EU Ref (unless there is a change of heart by the electorate).
I suspect that would have majority support inside and outside Parliament. There is only a fringe group who fulminate about the ECJ (or even know what it is) and immigration can be fudged/managed.
Edit: A very long transition would solve it. A very long transition.
There's no possibility of staying in the EEA but not being in EFTA. The EEA Treaty is written in such a way that one has to be in either the EU or EFTA. And EFTA membership requires us to leave the Customs Union. what you want is simply not possible.
Mr. Rentool, I think waiting until after submissions were made before saying UK cities don't count (didn't Istanbul win one year?) was a bit dickish.
Cities which have been European city of culture without being in the EU or the EEA:
Krakòw 2000 Prague 2000 Istanbul 2010
All three of which are cities in nations that were at the time accession nations which makes them valid. We're not going to be an accession nation after we leave.
And yet people keep telling us that Turkey were never going to join the EU.
To be fair I think the European City of Culture is a typically twattish form of eating public money that the EU seem to love so I am certainly not exercised by this. I just love to see them tying themselves in knots trying to justify these decisions.
That's not right. We say that Turkey was *talking* about joining. Negotiating. That is very different from the act of actually joining.
And on the substantive point, European Capital of Culture is open to 'potential candidates for membership', which I think we can all agree Turkey was back in 2010.
Being a 'potential candidate' is a long way from 'joining'.
"Eligibility is open to cities in EU member states, in countries that are candidates or potential candidates for membership, or in countries that are part of the European Economic Area (EEA)[1] - an example of the latter being Stavanger in Norway, which was a European Capital of Culture in 2008."
I would have thought someone so knowledgeable about EU affairs would have pointed that out ...
You're dealing with people desperate to avoid admitting to themselves their complicity with xenophobic lies. Don't expect them to come to terms with reality on this point any time soon, no matter how clearcut the evidence.
The problem for the Irish is though the "cliff" for the UK portion of their EU trade has to cross us to get to its markets. They also end up with a hard border which is precisely what they (nor anyone else too) wants.
[snip]
Probably good to buy shares in the Rosslare to France ferries (all two of them?), as the Irish stare down how vulnerable they really are if this goes badly sour, and look for way round it (literally!)
The border in the Irish Sea would be transparent and frictionless using the same technology proposed by the UK for the border between North and South so it's not a big deal logistically (allegedly).
Politically the DUP won't like it (slippery slope) though they do want an open border with the ROI.
Two options for the DUP.
1. Trenchantly oppose the border in the Irish Sea and risk ish Sea.
Membership of the customs union of itself shouldn't really be a red line - who really believes in those wonderful new trade deals. The problem is the regulatory convergence that the EU is insisting on, which would inevitably mean the UK following all EU legislation - hence, falling foul of the very legitimate 'sovereignty' red lines.
If you want to join EFTA then you cannot stay in the Customs Union. The two memberships are mutually exclusive because it would prevent EFTA negotiating their own trade deals.
That's right. We need to stay in the EEA including CU - but outside the political institutions to "respect" the EU Ref (unless there is a change of heart by the electorate).
I suspect that would have majority support inside and outside Parliament. There is only a fringe group who fulminate about the ECJ (or even know what it is) and immigration can be fudged/managed.
Edit: A very long transition would solve it. A very long transition.
Keeping free movement as now would not respect the Leave vote given Leave would not have got 52% without promising to end it.
Not providing the NHS with an extra £350 million a week would not respect the Leave vote given Leave would not have got 52% without promising to provide it.
Wrong. The top 3 reasons people voted Leave were first, the principle that decisions affecting the UK should be taken in the UK, second, to regain control of immigration and UK borders and third concern about lack of control over future EU membership and expansion.
Carswell's £350 million NHS poster nowhere to be seen.
Mr. Rentool, I think waiting until after submissions were made before saying UK cities don't count (didn't Istanbul win one year?) was a bit dickish.
Cities which have been European city of culture without being in the EU or the EEA:
Krakòw 2000 Prague 2000 Istanbul 2010
All three of which are cities in nations that were at the time accession nations which makes them valid. We're not going to be an accession nation after we leave.
And yet people keep telling us that Turkey were never going to join the EU.
To be fair I think the European City of Culture is a typically twattish form of eating public money that the EU seem to love so I am certainly not exercised by this. I just love to see them tying themselves in knots trying to justify these decisions.
That's not right. We say that Turkey was *talking* about joining. Negotiating. That is very different from the act of actually joining.
And on the substantive point, European Capital of Culture is open to 'potential candidates for membership', which I think we can all agree Turkey was back in 2010.
Being a 'potential candidate' is a long way from 'joining'.
"Eligibility is open to cities in EU member states, in countries that are candidates or potential candidates for membership, or in countries that are part of the European Economic Area (EEA)[1] - an example of the latter being Stavanger in Norway, which was a European Capital of Culture in 2008."
I would have thought someone so knowledgeable about EU affairs would have pointed that out ...
You're dealing with people desperate to avoid admitting to themselves their complicity with xenophobic lies. Don't expect them to come to terms with reality on this point any time soon, no matter how clearcut the evidence.
You have to sympathise with the voters in Alabama, forced to choose between a democrat and a paedophile.
I guess a lot will sit on their hands.
Although it wasn't always thus. The Democrats had two senators in Alabama as recently as 1994 and last elected a Democratic governor in 1998.
It's not a subject I know much about, David, but would I be right in thinking that the fierce antipathy to Democrats in Alabama and other southern States is rooted in resentment of the Civil Rights movement? Is that what makes a choice between a paedophile and a Democrat such a difficult call.
F1: I've just made three bets using my Betfair Sportsbook bonus which I got instead of the winnings I should've had for the Hamilton bet.
Because there's an expiry date these are a bit rushed, but what I backed were: safety car, evens Raikkonen podium, 4 Alonso, 2018 title each way (third the odds, top 2), 17
The last I've mentioned a lot. As for the safety car, lots of Abu Dhabi is tight and reliability can be wonky. Raikkonen has had many podium finishes recently so he should be around evensish.
The problem for the Irish is though the "cliff" for the UK as it is called in some quarters is the "cliff" for them too, with the added problem that if they are the last road block to a comprehensive deal that does fail, they will not be the blue eyed boys of the EU, for all protestations of solidarity of the 27, and they will have earned the serious displeasure of the UK which wont end well for them given a big chunk (40%?) of their agricultural exports at the least come our way and a very very large proportion of their EU trade has to cross us to get to its markets. They also end up with a hard border which is precisely what they (nor anyone else too) wants.
[snip]
Probably good to buy shares in the Rosslare to France ferries (all two of them?), as the Irish stare down how vulnerable they really are if this goes badly sour, and look for way round it (literally!)
The border in the Irish Sea would be transparent and frictionless using the same technology proposed by the UK for the border between North and South so it's not a big deal logistically (allegedly).
Politically the DUP won't like it (slippery slope) though they do want an open border with the ROI.
Two options for the DUP.
1. Trenchantly oppose the border in the Irish Sea and risk ish Sea.
Membership of the customs union of itself shouldn't really be a red line - who really believes in those wonderful new trade deals. The problem is the regulatory convergence that the EU is insisting on, which would inevitably mean the UK following all EU legislation - hence, falling foul of the very legitimate 'sovereignty' red lines.
If you want to join EFTA then you cannot stay in the Customs Union. The two memberships are mutually exclusive because it would prevent EFTA negotiating their own trade deals.
That's right. We need to stay in the EEA including CU - but outside the political institutions to "respect" the EU Ref (unless there is a change of heart by the electorate).
I suspect that would have majority support inside and outside Parliament. There is only a fringe group who fulminate about the ECJ (or even know what it is) and immigration can be fudged/managed.
Edit: A very long transition would solve it. A very long transition.
Keeping free movement as now would not respect the Leave vote given Leave would not have got 52% without promising to end it.
Bollocks. Didn’t you read @Fenster’s post yesterday?
However divided we are, I don't think any UK electorate would entertain voting for a child molester because he was representing the "right side". Equally, I don't think you could ever be a leader here if you were to openly mock the handicapped.
We should be grateful for small mercies.
Alan Clark married his wife when she was under 16 and was elected multiple times, Cyril Smith was a child molester, maybe Peter Morrison and Greville Janner too (albeit the full allegations only emerged later).
Labour MPs pulled faces at Tory MP Paul Maynard who has cystic fibrosis
Mr. Rentool, I think waiting until after submissions were made before saying UK cities don't count (didn't Istanbul win one year?) was a bit dickish.
Cities which have been European city of culture without being in the EU or the EEA:
Krakòw 2000 Prague 2000 Istanbul 2010
All three of which are cities in nations that were at the time accession nations which makes them valid. We're not going to be an accession nation after we leave.
And yet people keep telling us that Turkey were never going to join the EU.
To be fair I think the European City of Culture is a typically twattish form of eating public money that the EU seem to love so I am certainly not exercised by this. I just love to see them tying themselves in knots trying to justify these decisions.
That's not right. We say that Turkey was *talking* about joining. Negotiating. That is very different from the act of actually joining.
And on the substantive point, European Capital of Culture is open to 'potential candidates for membership', which I think we can all agree Turkey was back in 2010.
Being a 'potential candidate' is a long way from 'joining'.
"Eligibility is open to cities in EU member states, in countries that are candidates or potential candidates for membership, or in countries that are part of the European Economic Area (EEA)[1] - an example of the latter being Stavanger in Norway, which was a European Capital of Culture in 2008."
I would have thought someone so knowledgeable about EU affairs would have pointed that out ...
As I said before I have absolutely no interest in the European City of Culture but was just pointing out what appeared to be inconsistencies in what was being said.
Mr. Rentool, I think waiting until after submissions were made before saying UK cities don't count (didn't Istanbul win one year?) was a bit dickish.
Cities which have been European city of culture without being in the EU or the EEA:
Krakòw 2000 Prague 2000 Istanbul 2010
All three of which are cities in nations that were at the time accession nations which makes them valid. We're not going to be an accession nation after we leave.
And yet people keep telling us that Turkey were never going to join the EU.
To be fair I think the European City of Culture is a typically twattish form of eating public money that the EU seem to love so I am certainly not exercised by this. I just love to see them tying themselves in knots trying to justify these decisions.
That's not right. We say that Turkey was *talking* about joining. Negotiating. That is very different from the act of actually joining.
And on the substantive point, European Capital of Culture is open to 'potential candidates for membership', which I think we can all agree Turkey was back in 2010.
Being a 'potential candidate' is a long way from 'joining'.
"Eligibility is open to cities in EU member states, in countries that are candidates or potential candidates for membership, or in countries that are part of the European Economic Area (EEA)[1] - an example of the latter being Stavanger in Norway, which was a European Capital of Culture in 2008."
I would have thought someone so knowledgeable about EU affairs would have pointed that out ...
You're dealing with people desperate to avoid admitting to themselves their complicity with xenophobic lies. Don't expect them to come to terms with reality on this point any time soon, no matter how clearcut the evidence.
Quoting government policy during an election is not a xenophobic lie. You haven't yet explained why Cameron was lying to us in saying that it was government policy that Turkey should join the EU.
The problem for the Irish is though the "cliff" for the UK as it is called in some quarters is the "cliff" for them too, with the added problem that if they are the last road block to a comprehensive deal that does fail, they will not be the blue eyed boys of the EU, for all protestations of solidarity of the 27, and they will have earned the serious displeasure of the UK which wont end well for them given a big chunk (40%?) of their agricultural exports at the least come our way and a very very large proportion of their EU trade has to cross us to get to its markets. They also end up with a hard border which is precisely what they (nor anyone else too) wants.
[snip]
Probably good to buy shares in the Rosslare to France ferries (all two of them?), as the Irish stare down how vulnerable they really are if this goes badly sour, and look for way round it (literally!)
The border in the Irish Sea would be transparent and frictionless using the same technology proposed by the UK for the border between North and South so it's not a big deal logistically (allegedly).
Politically the DUP won't like it (slippery slope) though they do want an open border with the ROI.
Two options for the DUP.
1. Trenchantly oppose the border in the Irish Sea and risk ish Sea.
Membership of the customs union of itself shouldn't really be a red line - who really believes in those wonderful new trade deals. The problem is the regulatory convergence that the EU is insisting on, which would inevitably mean the UK following all EU legislation - hence, falling foul of the very legitimate 'sovereignty' red lines.
If you want to join EFTA then you cannot stay in the Customs Union. The two memberships are mutually exclusive because it would prevent EFTA negotiating their own trade deals.
That's right. We need to stay in the EEA including CU - but outside the political institutions to "respect" the EU Ref (unless there is a change of heart by the electorate).
I suspect that would have majority support inside and outside Parliament. There is only a fringe group who fulminate about the ECJ (or even know what it is) and immigration can be fudged/managed.
Edit: A very long transition would solve it. A very long transition.
Keeping free movement as now would not respect the Leave vote given Leave would not have got 52% without promising to end it.
Bollocks. Didn’t you read @Fenster’s post yesterday?
I missed Fensters post but I also agree with you on this.
However divided we are, I don't think any UK electorate would entertain voting for a child molester because he was representing the "right side". Equally, I don't think you could ever be a leader here if you were to openly mock the handicapped.
We should be grateful for small mercies.
Alan Clark married his wife when she was under 16 and was elected multiple times, Cyril Smith was a child molester, maybe Peter Morrison and Greville Janner too (albeit the full allegations only emerged later).
Labour MPs pulled faces at Tory MP Paul Maynard who has cystic fibrosis
Mr. Meeks, you must admit, the timing, waiting until submissions are made and only then saying nein, is a bit dickish.
Perhaps they didn't expect any submissions. The British Prime Minister said 'Brexit means Brexit' enough times they assumed the message had reached all parts of the UK.
However divided we are, I don't think any UK electorate would entertain voting for a child molester because he was representing the "right side". Equally, I don't think you could ever be a leader here if you were to openly mock the handicapped.
We should be grateful for small mercies.
Alan Clark married his wife when she was under 16 and was elected multiple times, Cyril Smith was a child molester, maybe Peter Morrison and Greville Janner too (albeit the full allegations only emerged later).
Labour MPs pulled faces at Tory MP Paul Maynard who has cystic fibrosis
Mr. Meeks, you must admit, the timing, waiting until submissions are made and only then saying nein, is a bit dickish.
Perhaps they didn't expect any submissions. The British Prime Minister said 'Brexit means Brexit' enough times they assumed the message had reached all parts of the UK.
Except that it was our turn to have the submissions as the nations rotate and they hadn't opened submissions for any other nation to replace us if we were no longer eligible.
That's not right. We say that Turkey was *talking* about joining. Negotiating. That is very different from the act of actually joining.
And on the substantive point, European Capital of Culture is open to 'potential candidates for membership', which I think we can all agree Turkey was back in 2010.
Being a 'potential candidate' is a long way from 'joining'.
"Eligibility is open to cities in EU member states, in countries that are candidates or potential candidates for membership, or in countries that are part of the European Economic Area (EEA)[1] - an example of the latter being Stavanger in Norway, which was a European Capital of Culture in 2008."
I would have thought someone so knowledgeable about EU affairs would have pointed that out ...
You're dealing with people desperate to avoid admitting to themselves their complicity with xenophobic lies. Don't expect them to come to terms with reality on this point any time soon, no matter how clearcut the evidence.
Quoting government policy during an election is not a xenophobic lie. You haven't yet explained why Cameron was lying to us in saying that it was government policy that Turkey should join the EU.
1) I don't hold a brief for David Cameron 2) Saying that it's government policy that Turkey should join the EU is not the same thing as "Turkey is joining the EU" 3) Turkey was not joining the EU
Meanwhile, you have yet to give any reason for the poster that does not involve inflaming fears of millions of Muslims descending on Britain
You seem more worried about arguing that the lie is not a lie than arguing that the poster isn't xenophobic. Noted.
Mr. Meeks, you must admit, the timing, waiting until submissions are made and only then saying nein, is a bit dickish.
Oh not just a bit, completely dickish. While under the pre-existing rules it seems to be a correct adjudication, you would have thought that this was a very simple way of the EU extending an olive twig in Britain's direction. The bureaucrats who signed off on this have behaved in a notably petty manner.
However divided we are, I don't think any UK electorate would entertain voting for a child molester because he was representing the "right side". Equally, I don't think you could ever be a leader here if you were to openly mock the handicapped.
We should be grateful for small mercies.
Alan Clark married his wife when she was under 16 and was elected multiple times, Cyril Smith was a child molester, maybe Peter Morrison and Greville Janner too (albeit the full allegations only emerged later).
Labour MPs pulled faces at Tory MP Paul Maynard who has cystic fibrosis
The problem for the Irish is though the "cliff" for the UK as it is called in some quarters is the "cliff" for them too, with the added problem that if they are the last road block to a comprehensive deal that does fail, they will not be the blue eyed boys of the EU, for all protestations of solidarity of the 27, and they will have earned the serious displeasure of the UK which wont end well for them given a big chunk (s markets. They also end up with a hard border which is precisely what they (nor anyone else too) wants.
[snip]
Probably good to buy shares in the Rosslare to France ferries (all two of them?), as the Irish stare down how vulnerable they really are if this goes badly sour, and look for way round it (literally!)
The border in the Irish Sea would be transparent and frictionless using the same technology proposed by the UK for the border between North and South so it's not a big deal logistically (allegedly).
Politically the DUP won't like it (slippery slope) though they do want an open border with the ROI.
Two options for the DUP.
1. Trenchantly oppose the border in the Irish Sea and risk ish Sea.
Membership of the customs union of itself shouldn't really be a red line - who really believes in those wonderful new trade deals. The problem is the regulatory convergence that the EU is insisting on, which would inevitably mean the UK following all EU legislation - hence, falling foul of the very legitimate 'sovereignty' red lines.
If you want to join EFTA then you cannot stay in the Customs Union. The two memberships are mutually exclusive because it would prevent EFTA negotiating their own trade deals.
That's right. We need to stay in the EEA including CU - but outside the political institutions to "respect" the EU Ref (unless there is a change of heart by the electorate).
I suspect that would have majority support inside and outside Parliament. There is only a fringe group who fulminate about the ECJ (or even know what it is) and immigration can be fudged/managed.
Edit: A very long transition would solve it. A very long transition.
Keeping free movement as now would not respect the Leave vote given Leave would not have got 52% without promising to end it.
Bollocks. Didn’t you read @Fenster’s post yesterday?
I missed Fensters post but I also agree with you on this.
In South Wales it was nothing to do with immigration and all to do with empty buildings with"Funded by the EU" written on the side.
Re the budget, I disagree with some of DavidL’s comments earlier in this thread. I think the idea that individuals are just accepting that wages will continue to be depressed because that is the world we live in now, or will come up accept so in the future is wishful thinking. Hammond’s budget wasn’t a disaster, it was a decent day for him in the sense there were no gaffes. But the budget doesn’t exactly transform the government’s fortunes either - a change in the image of the government is probably what would be required to make McDonnell’s spending plans look silly among Labour voters - Conservative voters views are likely to remain unchanged.
However divided we are, I don't think any UK electorate would entertain voting for a child molester because he was representing the "right side". Equally, I don't think you could ever be a leader here if you were to openly mock the handicapped.
We should be grateful for small mercies.
Alan Clark married his wife when she was under 16 and was elected multiple times, Cyril Smith was a child molester, maybe Peter Morrison and Greville Janner too (albeit the full allegations only emerged later).
Labour MPs pulled faces at Tory MP Paul Maynard who has cystic fibrosis
That's not right. We say that Turkey was *talking* about joining. Negotiating. That is very different from the act of actually joining.
And on the substantive point, European Capital of Culture is open to 'potential candidates for membership', which I think we can all agree Turkey was back in 2010.
Being a 'potential candidate' is a long way from 'joining'.
"Eligibility is open to cities in EU member states, in countries that are candidates or potential candidates for membership, or in countries that are part of the European Economic Area (EEA)[1] - an example of the latter being Stavanger in Norway, which was a European Capital of Culture in 2008."
I would have thought someone so knowledgeable about EU affairs would have pointed that out ...
You're dealing with people desperate to avoid admitting to themselves their complicity with xenophobic lies. Don't expect them to come to terms with reality on this point any time soon, no matter how clearcut the evidence.
Quoting government policy during an election is not a xenophobic lie. You haven't yet explained why Cameron was lying to us in saying that it was government policy that Turkey should join the EU.
1) I don't hold a brief for David Cameron 2) Saying that it's government policy that Turkey should join the EU is not the same thing as "Turkey is joining the EU" 3) Turkey was not joining the EU
Meanwhile, you have yet to give any reason for the poster that does not involve inflaming fears of millions of Muslims descending on Britain
You seem more worried about arguing that the lie is not a lie than arguing that the poster isn't xenophobic. Noted.
You don't need to bring either race or religion into it.
The average wage in the UK is equivalent to $2,900 per month vs $1,278 in Poland. That has resulted in a large portion of Poland's 38 million population move over to the UK when they were able to.
The average wage in Turkey is $820 per month and they have a population of over 79 million.
That means there are more than twice as many Turks than Poles and the wage discrepancy is even greater. The potential number of low-wage people moving over is even greater than it was with all its consequential effects if you're concerned about that on issues like housing etc.
Pure numbers and maths, no xenophobia or religion or race.
However divided we are, I don't think any UK electorate would entertain voting for a child molester because he was representing the "right side". Equally, I don't think you could ever be a leader here if you were to openly mock the handicapped.
We should be grateful for small mercies.
Alan Clark married his wife when she was under 16 and was elected multiple times, Cyril Smith was a child molester, maybe Peter Morrison and Greville Janner too (albeit the full allegations only emerged later).
Labour MPs pulled faces at Tory MP Paul Maynard who has cystic fibrosis
That's not right. We say that Turkey was *talking* about joining. Negotiating. That is very different from the act of actually joining.
And on the substantive point, European Capital of Culture is open to 'potential candidates for membership', which I think we can all agree Turkey was back in 2010.
Being a 'potential candidate' is a long way from 'joining'.
"Eligibility is open to cities in EU member states, in countries that are candidates or potential candidates for membership, or in countries that are part of the European Economic Area (EEA)[1] - an example of the latter being Stavanger in Norway, which was a European Capital of Culture in 2008."
I would have thought someone so knowledgeable about EU affairs would have pointed that out ...
You're dealing with people desperate to avoid admitting to themselves their complicity with xenophobic lies. Don't expect them to come to terms with reality on this point any time soon, no matter how clearcut the evidence.
Quoting government policy during an election is not a xenophobic lie. You haven't yet explained why Cameron was lying to us in saying that it was government policy that Turkey should join the EU.
1) I don't hold a brief for David Cameron 2) Saying that it's government policy that Turkey should join the EU is not the same thing as "Turkey is joining the EU" 3) Turkey was not joining the EU
Meanwhile, you have yet to give any reason for the poster that does not involve inflaming fears of millions of Muslims descending on Britain
You seem more worried about arguing that the lie is not a lie than arguing that the poster isn't xenophobic. Noted.
You don't need to bring either race or religion into it.
The average wage in the UK is equivalent to $2,900 per month vs $1,278 in Poland. That has resulted in a large portion of Poland's 38 million population move over to the UK when they were able to.
The average wage in Turkey is $820 per month and they have a population of over 79 million.
That means there are more than twice as many Turks than Poles and the wage discrepancy is even greater. The potential number of low-wage people moving over is even greater than it was with all its consequential effects if you're concerned about that on issues like housing etc.
Pure numbers and maths, no xenophobia or religion or race.
However divided we are, I don't think any UK electorate would entertain voting for a child molester because he was representing the "right side". Equally, I don't think you could ever be a leader here if you were to openly mock the handicapped.
We should be grateful for small mercies.
Alan Clark married his wife when she was under 16 and was elected multiple times, Cyril Smith was a child molester, maybe Peter Morrison and Greville Janner too (albeit the full allegations only emerged later).
Labour MPs pulled faces at Tory MP Paul Maynard who has cystic fibrosis
The problem for the Irish is though the "cliff" for the UK as it is called in some quarters is the "cliff" for them too, with the added problem that if they are the last road block to a comprehensive deal that does fail, they will not be the blue eyed boys of the EU, for all protestations of solidarity of the 27, and they will have earned the serious displeasure of the UK which wont end well for them given a big chunk (40%?) of their agricultural exports at the least come our way and a very very large proportion of their EU trade has to cross us to get to its markets. They also end up with a hard border which is precisely what they (nor anyone else too) wants.
[snip]
Probably good to buy shares in the Rosslare to France ferries (all two of them?), as the Irish stare down how vulnerable they really are if this goes badly sour, and look for way round it (literally!)
The border in the Irish Sea would be transparent and frictionless using the same technology proposed by the UK for the border between North and South so it's not a big deal logistically (allegedly).
Politically the DUP won't like it (slippery slope) though they do want an open border with the ROI.
Two options for the DUP.
1. Trenchantly oppose the border in the Irish Sea and risk ish Sea.
Membership of the customs union of itself shouldn't really be a red line - d lines.
If you want to join EFTA then you cannot stay in the Customs Union. The two memberships are mutually exclusive because it would prevent EFTA negotiating their own trade deals.
That's right. We need to stay in the EEA including CU - but outside the political institutions to "respect" the EU Ref (unless there is a change of heart by the electorate).
I suspect that would have majority support inside and outside Parliament. There is only a fringe group who fulminate about the ECJ (or even know what it is) and immigration can be fudged/managed.
Edit: A very long transition would solve it. A very long transition.
Keeping free movement as now would not respect the Leave vote given Leave would not have got 52% without promising to end it.
Bollocks. Didn’t you read @Fenster’s post yesterday?
Saying what? If you bothered to read the full Ashcroft exit poll of over 20 000 EU referendum voters my comment was absolutely right, immigration control was, along with sovereignty, one of the top 2 reasons for voting Leave.
So if anything is bollocks it is ant post saying ending free movement was not a key factor in the Leave vote.
1) I don't hold a brief for David Cameron 2) Saying that it's government policy that Turkey should join the EU is not the same thing as "Turkey is joining the EU" 3) Turkey was not joining the EU
Meanwhile, you have yet to give any reason for the poster that does not involve inflaming fears of millions of Muslims descending on Britain
You seem more worried about arguing that the lie is not a lie than arguing that the poster isn't xenophobic. Noted.
You don't need to bring either race or religion into it.
The average wage in the UK is equivalent to $2,900 per month vs $1,278 in Poland. That has resulted in a large portion of Poland's 38 million population move over to the UK when they were able to.
The average wage in Turkey is $820 per month and they have a population of over 79 million.
That means there are more than twice as many Turks than Poles and the wage discrepancy is even greater. The potential number of low-wage people moving over is even greater than it was with all its consequential effects if you're concerned about that on issues like housing etc.
Pure numbers and maths, no xenophobia or religion or race.
Tell it to the marines.
1) Turkey was not joining the EU 2) Vast numbers of Turks were not coming to Britain now or any time in the foreseeable future 3) Vote Leave's own literature on the subject of Turkey helpfully highlighted Turkey's borders with Syria and Iraq, suggesting that they weren't flagging economic concerns
You and the other enthusiastic Leave supporters were complicit in a xenophobic lie. The country will be paying the price for this lace curtain racism for many years to come.
However divided we are, I don't think any UK electorate would entertain voting for a child molester because he was representing the "right side". Equally, I don't think you could ever be a leader here if you were to openly mock the handicapped.
We should be grateful for small mercies.
Alan Clark married his wife when she was under 16 and was elected multiple times, Cyril Smith was a child molester, maybe Peter Morrison and Greville Janner too (albeit the full allegations only emerged later).
Labour MPs pulled faces at Tory MP Paul Maynard who has cystic fibrosis
The debate on productivity seems to have become the narrative of the budget and how to address it.
There was an interview on the BBC with a labour spokesman and it became apparent that labour's spending pledges and huge borrowings do not address the issue including cancelling student fees, public sector pay rises and nationalisation
You do wonder if the penny has dropped and McDonnell's recent car crash interviews maybe a result of him realising that he has a much harder, if not impossible, task of selling his policies to an already sceptical public
That was the point I was making at the start of the thread. I think we are slowly coming to terms with the idea that our economy needs a lot of work, most of it by people other than the government.
That is absolutely ridiculous and would satisfy nobody who thought for more than 5 seconds on the subject.
Being inside the EEA and CU we would be under all the restrictions that made people against the EU but without any element of control via being able to vote on issues within the EU. We would have all the negatives of EU membership without the positives.
There is no way to manage immigration or anything else inside the EEA and CU as the EEA has the full Free Movement requirements that the EU has.
Indeed, ridiculous, and satisfies nobody. It delivers less than membership and we would be taking rules forevermore. So much for taking back control. We would have far less control than as members.
Nevertheless I am confident (say 70%) that the EEA or equivalent is where we will end up.
The EU is the only game in town in Europe. Up to now the UK has acted as a gateway between Europe and the World. It's a selling point. If we reject the EU, and effectively Europe, we are no longer a gateway. What would our replacement USP be?
Low cost is competing with countries like Turkey and Tunisia. We are not in that space. We don't have excess commodities. Value add is where we should be, but that requires being plugged in so we have stuff to add value to. We need broad and deep relationships. The EU is available and close by. There really isn't an alternative to it.
No-one has yet come up with a realistic and successful Brexit outcome for the UK that doesn't involve a deep and broad relationship with the European Union. Any such relationship will be on the EU's terms, so we need to know what they will offer and pick from what those offers. Broadly, the choice appears to be Canada, Norway or full membership. Canada doesn't deliver the broad and deep relationship that we need. We have rejected full membership in a referendum, although that is the best of the options in other respects.
However divided we are, I don't think any UK electorate would entertain voting for a child molester because he was representing the "right side". Equally, I don't think you could ever be a leader here if you were to openly mock the handicapped.
We should be grateful for small mercies.
Alan Clark married his wife when she was under 16 and was elected multiple times, Cyril Smith was a child molester, maybe Peter Morrison and Greville Janner too (albeit the full allegations only emerged later).
Labour MPs pulled faces at Tory MP Paul Maynard who has cystic fibrosis
In South Wales it was nothing to do with immigration and all to do with empty buildings with"Funded by the EU" written on the side.
Not sure about that myself as I lack the local knowledge. But I do know there were a very large number of Leave voters for whom immigration was not the reason for their vote. Combined with the Remain vote they would represent far more than 50% of the population for whom a solution that did not end freedom of movement would be acceptable.
Not providing the NHS with an extra £350 million a week would not respect the Leave vote given Leave would not have got 52% without promising to provide it.
Wrong. The top 3 reasons people voted Leave were first, the principle that decisions affecting the UK should be taken in the UK, second, to regain control of immigration and UK borders and third over concern about lack of control over future EU membership and expansion.
Carswell's £350 million NHS poster nowhere to be seen.
That is an accurate assessment - as a remainer those were the three reasons that came out of the leave campaign and while I voted remain I absolutely accept that is the basis of the vote
Remainers are trying to use the 350 million promise by leave as a lever towards their argument but it was one of many statements from both sides that was wildly exaggerated and both were equally responsible for ramping up their arguments
The problem for the Irish is though the "cliff" for the UK as it is called in some quarters is the "cliff" for them too, with the added problem that if they are the last road block to a comprehensive deal that does fail, they will not be the blue eyed boys of the EU, for all protestations of solidarity of the 27, and they will have earned the serioortion of their EU trade has to cross us to get to its markets. They also end up with a hard border which is precisely what they (nor anyone else too) wants.
[snip]
Probably good to buy shares in the Rosslare to France ferries (all two of them?), as the Irish stare down how vulnerable they really are if this goes badly sour, and look for way round it (literally!)
The border in the Irish Sea would be transparent and frictionless using the same technology proposed by the UK for the border between North and South so it's not a big deal logistically (allegedly).
Politically the DUP won't like it (slippery slope) though they do want an open border with the ROI.
Two options for the DUP.
1. Trenchantly oppose the border in the Irish Sea and risk ish Sea.
Membership of the customs union of itself shouldn't really be a red line - d lines.
If you want to join EFTA then you cannot stay in the Customs Union. The two memberships are mutually exclusive because it would prevent EFTA negotiating their own trade deals.
That's right. We need to stay in the EEA including CU - but outside the political institutions to "respect" the EU Ref (unless there is a change of heart by the electorate).
I suspect that would have majority support inside and outside Parliament. There is only a fringe group who fulminate about the ECJ (or even know what it is) and immigration can be fudged/managed.
Edit: A very long transition would solve it. A very long transition.
Keeping free movement as now would not respect the Leave vote given Leave would not have got 52% without promising to end it.
Bollocks. Didn’t you read @Fenster’s post yesterday?
Saying what? If you bothered to read the full Ashcroft exit poll of over 20 000 EU referendum voters my comment was absolutely right, immigration control was, along with sovereignty, one of the top 2 reasons for voting Leave.
So if anything is bollocks it is ant post saying ending free movement was not a key factor in the Leave vote.
Nah nothing to do with immigration in South Wales, and elsewhere I'd warrant, but by all means hold on to your polls.
Re the budget, I disagree with some of DavidL’s comments earlier in this thread. I think the idea that individuals are just accepting that wages will continue to be depressed because that is the world we live in now, or will come up accept so in the future is wishful thinking. Hammond’s budget wasn’t a disaster, it was a decent day for him in the sense there were no gaffes. But the budget doesn’t exactly transform the government’s fortunes either - a change in the image of the government is probably what would be required to make McDonnell’s spending plans look silly among Labour voters - Conservative voters views are likely to remain unchanged.
In all serious it is nice to have had a budget that did not completely disintegrate within 12 hours. It seems a very long time since we have had the pleasure of such a beast.
However divided we are, I don't think any UK electorate would entertain voting for a child molester because he was representing the "right side". Equally, I don't think you could ever be a leader here if you were to openly mock the handicapped.
We should be grateful for small mercies.
Alan Clark married his wife when she was under 16 and was elected multiple times, Cyril Smith was a child molester, maybe Peter Morrison and Greville Janner too (albeit the full allegations only emerged later).
Labour MPs pulled faces at Tory MP Paul Maynard who has cystic fibrosis
I don't know how Jane Clark tolerated her husband.
I have spent all my life looking at the marriages of others and wondering about them. The fact is the view outsiders get of a relationship are rarely the whole story, and a marriage's pubic face might be very different from the reality.
As an example, a friend of mine could probably be called a (verbally) battered husband, yet people not close to them might not see it like that. And extending that, we don't see other things that might happen in their relationship. Certainly their young daughter has said things that make it appear worryingly not all one-sided.
People project images of themselves. Couples project images of their marriages. Another anecdote: I was at a soiree with a couple where everything seemed fine: they were kissing and treating each other in the appropriate manner. A month or so later I heard they were getting divorced.
It was nothing to do with me, honest guv. At least, I don't think so ...
The problem for the Irish is though the "cliff" for the UK as it is called in some quarters is the "cliff" for them too, with the added problem that if they are the last road block to a comprehensive deal that does fail, they will not be the blue eyed boys of the EU, for all protestations of solidarity of the 27, and they will have earned the serioortion of their EU trade has to cross us to get to its markets. They also end up with a hard border which is precisely what they (nor anyone else too) wants.
[snip]
Probably good to buy shares in the Rosslare to France ferries (all two of them?), as the Irish stare down how vulnerable they really are if this goes badly sour, and look for way round it (literally!)
The border in the Irish Sea would be transparent and frictionless using the same technology proposed by the UK for the border between North and South so it's not a big deal logistically (allegedly).
Politically the DUP won't like it (slippery slope) though they do want an open border with the ROI.
Two options for the DUP.
1. Trenchantly oppose the border in the Irish Sea and risk ish Sea.
Membership of the customs union of itself shouldn't really be a red line - d lines.
If you want to join EFTA then you cannot stay in the Customs Union. The two memberships are mutually exclusive because it would prevent EFTA negotiating their own trade deals.
That's right. We need to stay in the EEA including transition.
Keeping free movement as now would not respect the Leave vote given Leave would not have got 52% without promising to end it.
Bollocks. Didn’t you read @Fenster’s post yesterday?
Saying what? If you bothered to read the full Ashcroft exit poll of over 20 000 EU referendum voters my comment was absolutely right, immigration control was, along with sovereignty, one of the top 2 reasons for voting Leave.
So if anything is bollocks it is ant post saying ending free movement was not a key factor in the Leave vote.
Nah nothing to do with immigration in South Wales, and elsewhere I'd warrant, but by all means hold on to your polls.
Rubbish, the idea voters in Merthyr Tydfil and Newport etc were not voting Leave to reduce immigration from Eastern Europe particularly is ridiculous
It's only an opinion but I don't think immigration was a big factor in the Welsh Brexit vote, certainly not in the valleys where immigration has little resonance.
The empty buildings* thing was a flippant but metaphorical comment on what I do think was a bigger driving force.... ie: the emptiness and wastefulness of human beings in the valleys rust belt. The status quo has done nothing for the upper valleys and Brexit was a more an anguished vote for change, I guess.
*The EU are very good at claiming the plaudits for new, shiny things in Wales. Given that we are Objective 1 (basically too useless to look after ourselves) the EU probably assume we are too stupid to realise that EU Objective 1 money is basically our recycled taxes.
Re the budget, I disagree with some of DavidL’s comments earlier in this thread. I think the idea that individuals are just accepting that wages will continue to be depressed because that is the world we live in now, or will come up accept so in the future is wishful thinking. Hammond’s budget wasn’t a disaster, it was a decent day for him in the sense there were no gaffes. But the budget doesn’t exactly transform the government’s fortunes either - a change in the image of the government is probably what would be required to make McDonnell’s spending plans look silly among Labour voters - Conservative voters views are likely to remain unchanged.
In all serious it is nice to have had a budget that did not completely disintegrate within 12 hours. It seems a very long time since we have had the pleasure of such a beast.
However divided we are, I don't think any UK electorate would entertain voting for a child molester because he was representing the "right side". Equally, I don't think you could ever be a leader here if you were to openly mock the handicapped.
We should be grateful for small mercies.
Alan Clark married his wife when she was under 16 and was elected multiple times, Cyril Smith was a child molester, maybe Peter Morrison and Greville Janner too (albeit the full allegations only emerged later).
Labour MPs pulled faces at Tory MP Paul Maynard who has cystic fibrosis
Mr. Meeks, you must admit, the timing, waiting until submissions are made and only then saying nein, is a bit dickish.
The Department of Culture Media and Sport encouraged bids from cities for the European Capital of Culture when the rules were absolutely clear that the UK would not be eligible after departure from the EU. I don't care about the capital of culture but I think the DCMS has misled the bidding cities into investing time and money into a non-existent competition and is now trying to cover up.
It's only an opinion but I don't think immigration was a big factor in the Welsh Brexit vote, certainly not in the valleys where immigration has little resonance.
The empty buildings* thing was a flippant but metaphorical comment on what I do think was a bigger driving force.... ie: the emptiness and wastefulness of human beings in the valleys rust belt. The status quo has done nothing for the upper valleys and Brexit was a more an anguished vote for change, I guess.
*The EU are very good at claiming the plaudits for new, shiny things in Wales. Given that we are Objective 1 (basically too useless to look after ourselves) the EU probably assume we are too stupid to realise that EU Objective 1 money is basically our recycled taxes.
Yes I was also being flippant about the empty buildings.
Still, now that the noted South Wales Brexit expert @HYUFD has opined we shouldn't really say anything else on the matter.
Re the budget, I disagree with some of DavidL’s comments earlier in this thread. I think the idea that individuals are just accepting that wages will continue to be depressed because that is the world we live in now, or will come up accept so in the future is wishful thinking. Hammond’s budget wasn’t a disaster, it was a decent day for him in the sense there were no gaffes. But the budget doesn’t exactly transform the government’s fortunes either - a change in the image of the government is probably what would be required to make McDonnell’s spending plans look silly among Labour voters - Conservative voters views are likely to remain unchanged.
I am not suggesting anyone is thrilled about it. But the focus on the productivity issue, which others such as @Big_G_NorthWales has noted as well, is giving cover to the government that they did not have before.
As for the government's fortunes, I was rather focussing on the fortunes of Labour. They have had a bad 48 hours and you haven't often been able to say that after a Tory budget.
Ps the Ken Clarke story is excellent and made me like him even more.
Not providing the NHS with an extra £350 million a week would not respect the Leave vote given Leave would not have got 52% without promising to provide it.
Wrong. The top 3 reasons people voted Leave were first, the principle that decisions affecting the UK should be taken in the UK, second, to regain control of immigration and UK borders and third over concern about lack of control over future EU membership and expansion.
Carswell's £350 million NHS poster nowhere to be seen.
That is an accurate assessment - as a remainer those were the three reasons that came out of the leave campaign and while I voted remain I absolutely accept that is the basis of the vote
Remainers are trying to use the 350 million promise by leave as a lever towards their argument but it was one of many statements from both sides that was wildly exaggerated and both were equally responsible for ramping up their arguments
-------------------------------------------------------- If the £350 million promise only influenced 5% of the Leave vote to vote Leave, my point remains valid. Leave would not have got over 50% without that promise.
I made the point to show the flaw in HYUFD's argument that Leave wouldn't have got 52% without the promise on immigration. He's right but it is not all the 52% by any means. Joining the EEA might satisfy say 5% of Leave voters which would put it under 50%.
Not providing the NHS with an extra £350 million a week would not respect the Leave vote given Leave would not have got 52% without promising to provide it.
Wrong. The top 3 reasons people voted Leave were first, the principle that decisions affecting the UK should be taken in the UK, second, to regain control of immigration and UK borders and third over concern about lack of control over future EU membership and expansion.
Carswell's £350 million NHS poster nowhere to be seen.
'That is an accurate assessment - as a remainer those were the three reasons that came out of the leave campaign and while I voted remain I absolutely accept that is the basis of the vote
Remainers are trying to use the 350 million promise by leave as a lever towards their argument but it was one of many statements from both sides that was wildly exaggerated and both were equally responsible for ramping up their arguments'
Indeed and several polls had Leave ahead before that absurd poster, by the final week most polls had Remain ahead
Mr. Meeks, you must admit, the timing, waiting until submissions are made and only then saying nein, is a bit dickish.
The Department of Culture Media and Sport encouraged bids from cities for the European Capital of Culture when the rules were absolutely clear that the UK would not be eligible after departure from the EU. I don't care about the capital of culture but I think the DCMS has misled the bidding cities into investing time and money into a non-existent competition and is now trying to cover up.
Mr. Meeks, you must admit, the timing, waiting until submissions are made and only then saying nein, is a bit dickish.
The Department of Culture Media and Sport encouraged bids from cities for the European Capital of Culture when the rules were absolutely clear that the UK would not be eligible after departure from the EU. I don't care about the capital of culture but I think the DCMS has misled the bidding cities into investing time and money into a non-existent competition and is now trying to cover up.
This was the guidance they gave at the time they invited bids, which was after the referendum but before Article 50 was invoked.
Xenophobia, schmenophobia, what a ludicrous canard this is. No recognised, sane, adult commentator has said at any stage in the past year, while the likes of Merkel and Verhofstadt have been saying that Turkey's application is now toast, that this is so much posturing because Turkey was only being strung along anyway. It's difficult even to find any nutters making the claim.
Not providing the NHS with an extra £350 million a week would not respect the Leave vote given Leave would not have got 52% without promising to provide it.
Wrong. The top 3 reasons people voted Leave were first, the principle that decisions affecting the UK should be taken in the UK, second, to regain control of immigration and UK borders and third over concern about lack of control over future EU membership and expansion.
Carswell's £350 million NHS poster nowhere to be seen.
That is an accurate assessment - as a remainer those were the three reasons that came out of the leave campaign and while I voted remain I absolutely accept that is the basis of the vote
Remainers are trying to use the 350 million promise by leave as a lever towards their argument but it was one of many statements from both sides that was wildly exaggerated and both were equally responsible for ramping up their arguments
-------------------------------------------------------- If the £350 million promise only influenced 5% of the Leave vote to vote Leave, my point remains valid. Leave would not have got over 50% without that promise.
I made the point to show the flaw in HYUFD's argument that Leave wouldn't have got 52% without the promise on immigration. He's right but it is not all the 52% by any means. Joining the EEA might satisfy say 5% of Leave voters which would put it under 50%.
Conversely project fear had a real impact including my remain vote and it was probably worth more remain votes than the 350 million for leave
Newport is a poor shithole. Immigration was probably more salient there. I know the recent terror links to Newport have shocked a few people round here. I certainly wouldn't walk round Pill, Maindee or Ringland at night. Dangerous areas.
Merthyr is a great place. Salt of the earth. Absolutely bonkers night out in Merthyr.
Not providing the NHS with an extra £350 million a week would not respect the Leave vote given Leave would not have got 52% without promising to provide it.
Wrong. The top 3 reasons people voted Leave were first, the principle that decisions affecting the UK should be taken in the UK, second, to regain control of immigration and UK borders and third over concern about lack of control over future EU membership and expansion.
Carswell's £350 million NHS poster nowhere to be seen.
'That is an accurate assessment - as a remainer those were the three reasons that came out of the leave campaign and while I voted remain I absolutely accept that is the basis of the vote
Remainers are trying to use the 350 million promise by leave as a lever towards their argument but it was one of many statements from both sides that was wildly exaggerated and both were equally responsible for ramping up their arguments
-------------------------------------------------------- If the £350 million promise only influenced 5% of the Leave vote to vote Leave, my point remains valid. Leave would not have got over 50% without that promise.
I made the point to show the flaw in HYUFD's argument that Leave wouldn't have got 52% without the promise on immigration. He's right but it is not all the 52% by any means. Joining the EEA might satisfy say 5% of Leave voters which would put it under 50%.'
Wrong, as several polls had Leave over 50% even before that poster, in large part because of concerns over immigration due to Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004.
In a decade or so once we have reduced EU immigration the EEA may be an option, not now.
Mr. Meeks, you must admit, the timing, waiting until submissions are made and only then saying nein, is a bit dickish.
The Department of Culture Media and Sport encouraged bids from cities for the European Capital of Culture when the rules were absolutely clear that the UK would not be eligible after departure from the EU. I don't care about the capital of culture but I think the DCMS has misled the bidding cities into investing time and money into a non-existent competition and is now trying to cover up.
This was the guidance they gave at the time they invited bids, which was after the referendum but before Article 50 was invoked.
It's only an opinion but I don't think immigration was a big factor in the Welsh Brexit vote, certainly not in the valleys where immigration has little resonance.
The empty buildings* thing was a flippant but metaphorical comment on what I do think was a bigger driving force.... ie: the emptiness and wastefulness of human beings in the valleys rust belt. The status quo has done nothing for the upper valleys and Brexit was a more an anguished vote for change, I guess.
*The EU are very good at claiming the plaudits for new, shiny things in Wales. Given that we are Objective 1 (basically too useless to look after ourselves) the EU probably assume we are too stupid to realise that EU Objective 1 money is basically our recycled taxes.
Yes I was also being flippant about the empty buildings.
Still, now that the noted South Wales Brexit expert @HYUFD has opined we shouldn't really say anything else on the matter.
South Wales voters voted for Corbyn because of deindustrialisation a they have always voted Labour and even more so since the 1980s, for Brexit mainly due to immigration concerns..
Mr. Meeks, you must admit, the timing, waiting until submissions are made and only then saying nein, is a bit dickish.
Oh not just a bit, completely dickish. While under the pre-existing rules it seems to be a correct adjudication, you would have thought that this was a very simple way of the EU extending an olive twig in Britain's direction. The bureaucrats who signed off on this have behaved in a notably petty manner.
There is nothing to sign off on. The rules are completely clear. The programme is an EU one for member states, accession countries and potential accession countries that sign up to the EU's cultural programme. Accession countries are on a different timetable so the slot wouldn't be available to the UK if it could be designated somehow as an EU accession state. Otherwise the whole programme would have to be revised in the European Council and Parliament.
The UK DCMS knew all this but encouraged bidding cities to waste their money.
However divided we are, I don't think any UK electorate would entertain voting for a child molester because he was representing the "right side". Equally, I don't think you could ever be a leader here if you were to openly mock the handicapped.
We should be grateful for small mercies.
Alan Clark married his wife when she was under 16 and was elected multiple times, Cyril Smith was a child molester, maybe Peter Morrison and Greville Janner too (albeit the full allegations only emerged later).
Labour MPs pulled faces at Tory MP Paul Maynard who has cystic fibrosis
Mr. Meeks, you must admit, the timing, waiting until submissions are made and only then saying nein, is a bit dickish.
The Department of Culture Media and Sport encouraged bids from cities for the European Capital of Culture when the rules were absolutely clear that the UK would not be eligible after departure from the EU. I don't care about the capital of culture but I think the DCMS has misled the bidding cities into investing time and money into a non-existent competition and is now trying to cover up.
My problem with the European City of Culture is that, like the Olympics, any hyped legacy turns out to be illusory. It seems to be something that certain segments of society revel in, whilst the people who really need help in the city get f'all help, and once the cameras and luminaries have gone, they are left in just the same state as before.
Even London 2012, which might actually leave a positive physical legacy (unusually for the Olympics) could have achieved the same redevelopment end result for an order of magnitude less money.
Witness also Heseltine's Garden Festivals, whose successes are very varied.
Newport is a poor shithole. Immigration was probably more salient there. I know the recent terror links to Newport have shocked a few people round here. I certainly wouldn't walk round Pill, Maindee or Ringland at night. Dangerous areas.
Merthyr is a great place. Salt of the earth. Absolutely bonkers night out in Merthyr.
I certainly knew Newport when living in Hereford, it was one of my main train stops
Anyway, enough of this frivolity. Does nobody apart from me think that Australia are ridiculously short to win the first Test? They're just about evens now. There's rain around and the pitch is already taking spin. If England can scrape together another 150 runs, they are in great shape to take at least a draw, no?
In South Wales it was nothing to do with immigration and all to do with empty buildings with"Funded by the EU" written on the side.
Not sure about that myself as I lack the local knowledge. But I do know there were a very large number of Leave voters for whom immigration was not the reason for their vote. Combined with the Remain vote they would represent far more than 50% of the population for whom a solution that did not end freedom of movement would be acceptable.
I think there are probably compromises that would be acceptable to the EU and a substantial number of Leave voters, though.
We could have a requirement - as in Switzerland - for immigrants to buy health insurance.
We could require, as happens under NAFTA for Canadian citizens, for people to be in receipt of a job offer before getting a work permit.
We could require, as happens in both Switzerland and Norway, registration with the local police station.
All those things could significantly reduce low skilled immigration, barely affect the City or technology industries, and allow us to have a deep relationship with the EU.
Mr. Meeks, you must admit, the timing, waiting until submissions are made and only then saying nein, is a bit dickish.
Oh not just a bit, completely dickish. While under the pre-existing rules it seems to be a correct adjudication, you would have thought that this was a very simple way of the EU extending an olive twig in Britain's direction. The bureaucrats who signed off on this have behaved in a notably petty manner.
There is nothing to sign off on. The rules are completely clear. The programme is an EU one for member states, accession countries and potential accession countries that sign up to the EU's cultural programme. Accession countries are on a different timetable so the slot wouldn't be available to the UK if it could be designated somehow as an EU accession state. Otherwise the whole programme would have to be revised in the European Council and Parliament.
The UK DCMS knew all this but encouraged bidding cities to waste their money.
Rules can be changed. The EU would have been well-advised to have done exactly that. It would have been a pretty harmless gesture.
I suppose the interesting figure for Roy Moore is how many of those who had already planned to vote for him disbelieve the allegations, and how many believe or potentially believe the allegations but don't care - because the latter people will be far far scarier than merely those who may, reasonably or not, choose to disbelieve.
Re the budget, I disagree with some of DavidL’s comments earlier in this thread. I think the idea that individuals are just accepting that wages will continue to be depressed because that is the world we live in now, or will come up accept so in the future is wishful thinking. Hammond’s budget wasn’t a disaster, it was a decent day for him in the sense there were no gaffes. But the budget doesn’t exactly transform the government’s fortunes either - a change in the image of the government is probably what would be required to make McDonnell’s spending plans look silly among Labour voters - Conservative voters views are likely to remain unchanged.
I am not suggesting anyone is thrilled about it. But the focus on the productivity issue, which others such as @Big_G_NorthWales has noted as well, is giving cover to the government that they did not have before.
As for the government's fortunes, I was rather focussing on the fortunes of Labour. They have had a bad 48 hours and you haven't often been able to say that after a Tory budget.
The productivity issue has been talked about before. I doubt that ordinary voters whose wages are being affected will go ‘oh never mind, I’ll not be angry with the government, it’s productivity that’s the problem.’ Usually when the economy starts to have issues voters take it out on the government, I doubt this case will be different.
Re Labour, I’ve heard more about them having a terrible time of it on here than elsewhere tbh. Corbyn’s response didn’t seem to gage much reaction either way, and wasn’t presented in a negative way on BBC news last night. PMQs yesterday didn’t seem great for Corbyn on here, but looking at the punditry on twitter there seemed to be no real enthusiasm for either his or May’s performance. The only thing that’s ‘bad’ for Labour that I’ve heard about is that McDonnell hasn’t had good interviews, but then that’s no change from before.
I think the more long-term issue is that the kind of problems likely to make voters consider Corbyn and stay on his team are still going to be there for the government years down the line: Brexit fallout, decline in living standards, housing crisis.
Mr. Meeks, you must admit, the timing, waiting until submissions are made and only then saying nein, is a bit dickish.
Oh not just a bit, completely dickish. While under the pre-existing rules it seems to be a correct adjudication, you would have thought that this was a very simple way of the EU extending an olive twig in Britain's direction. The bureaucrats who signed off on this have behaved in a notably petty manner.
There is nothing to sign off on. The rules are completely clear. The programme is an EU one for member states, accession countries and potential accession countries that sign up to the EU's cultural programme. Accession countries are on a different timetable so the slot wouldn't be available to the UK if it could be designated somehow as an EU accession state. Otherwise the whole programme would have to be revised in the European Council and Parliament.
The UK DCMS knew all this but encouraged bidding cities to waste their money.
Rules can be changed. The EU would have been well-advised to have done exactly that. It would have been a pretty harmless gesture.
In South Wales it was nothing to do with immigration and all to do with empty buildings with"Funded by the EU" written on the side.
Not sure about that myself as I lack the local knowledge. But I do know there were a very large number of Leave voters for whom immigration was not the reason for their vote. Combined with the Remain vote they would represent far more than 50% of the population for whom a solution that did not end freedom of movement would be acceptable.
Most of them upper middle class Leave voters like you.
I am sorry but you used working class Leave voters immigration concerns to win the referendum and if you and the 2 main parties now ignore them as they are no longer of use and just have a Leave vote to suit middle class Leavers things will get ugly and it will be UKIP and the far right who prosper.
Mr. Meeks, you must admit, the timing, waiting until submissions are made and only then saying nein, is a bit dickish.
Oh not just a bit, completely dickish. While under the pre-existing rules it seems to be a correct adjudication, you would have thought that this was a very simple way of the EU extending an olive twig in Britain's direction. The bureaucrats who signed off on this have behaved in a notably petty manner.
There is nothing to sign off on. The rules are completely clear. The programme is an EU one for member states, accession countries and potential accession countries that sign up to the EU's cultural programme. Accession countries are on a different timetable so the slot wouldn't be available to the UK if it could be designated somehow as an EU accession state. Otherwise the whole programme would have to be revised in the European Council and Parliament.
The UK DCMS knew all this but encouraged bidding cities to waste their money.
Isn't it open to EEA countries as well? Or do they view them as inevitably becoming part of the EU?
Mr. Meeks, you must admit, the timing, waiting until submissions are made and only then saying nein, is a bit dickish.
Oh not just a bit, completely dickish. While under the pre-existing rules it seems to be a correct adjudication, you would have thought that this was a very simple way of the EU extending an olive twig in Britain's direction. The bureaucrats who signed off on this have behaved in a notably petty manner.
There is nothing to sign off on. The rules are completely clear. The programme is an EU one for member states, accession countries and potential accession countries that sign up to the EU's cultural programme. Accession countries are on a different timetable so the slot wouldn't be available to the UK if it could be designated somehow as an EU accession state. Otherwise the whole programme would have to be revised in the European Council and Parliament.
The UK DCMS knew all this but encouraged bidding cities to waste their money.
Rules can be changed. The EU would have been well-advised to have done exactly that. It would have been a pretty harmless gesture.
Instead they just look petty.
It's not petty. It's the law. I am surprised I am saying this to a lawyer. It can be repealed or revised but it would have to go through the full EP/EC cycle
However divided we are, I don't think any UK electorate would entertain voting for a child molester because he was representing the "right side". Equally, I don't think you could ever be a leader here if you were to openly mock the handicapped.
We should be grateful for small mercies.
Agree. Except I'd say it's not a small mercy at all - it's a rather large one.
Would the Dems do the same? I like to think they'd turn on a candidate like Roy Moore. But who knows!? They largely stuck by Bill Clinton who certainly had enough rape allegations...
'Largely stuck by him'?! They were prepared to make him First Gentleman (or whatever the title would have been) as recently as last year.
I think it's fair enough not to hold Bill's crimes against Hilary. But yes you're right - that was an understatement.
To an extent that's true but given that the presidential spouse holds a recognised office, and that Hillary did nothing to distance herself from Bill, she's not entirely in the clear.
In fact, it's one of the odder aspects of a very odd election that despite Trump shouting the claims from the stage in a debate, it never really became an issue.
I was half expecting Trump to say something completely outrageous and potentially libellous about the Clintons during one of the debates, as a dead cat strategy to get everyone discussing whether there was any truth to what he said or not.
Mr. Meeks, you must admit, the timing, waiting until submissions are made and only then saying nein, is a bit dickish.
Oh not just a bit, completely dickish. While under the pre-existing rules it seems to be a correct adjudication, you would have thought that this was a very simple way of the EU extending an olive twig in Britain's direction. The bureaucrats who signed off on this have behaved in a notably petty manner.
There is nothing to sign off on. The rules are completely clear. The programme is an EU one for member states, accession countries and potential accession countries that sign up to the EU's cultural programme. Accession countries are on a different timetable so the slot wouldn't be available to the UK if it could be designated somehow as an EU accession state. Otherwise the whole programme would have to be revised in the European Council and Parliament.
The UK DCMS knew all this but encouraged bidding cities to waste their money.
Rules can be changed. The EU would have been well-advised to have done exactly that. It would have been a pretty harmless gesture.
Instead they just look petty.
It's not petty. It's the law. I am surprised I am saying this to a lawyer. It can be repealed or revised but it would have to go through the full EP/EC cycle
As a lawyer I'm well aware that rules can be changed. It should not have been beyond the wit of man to do so here. The place that year had already been allocated to the UK so it isn't as if anyone would be losing out as a consequence.
Anyway, enough of this frivolity. Does nobody apart from me think that Australia are ridiculously short to win the first Test? They're just about evens now. There's rain around and the pitch is already taking spin. If England can scrape together another 150 runs, they are in great shape to take at least a draw, no?
There's an extra half hour on the second day because of the rain on the first. There is also a suggestion that the spin is from some underlying moisture and that the pitch may well dry out into a belter on days 2 and 3. I agree with Vince (which feels pretty unnatural) that the first hour tonight will be pretty critical. If England get out of that 1 more down I would start to fancy their chances of at least a draw.
In South Wales it was nothing to do with immigration and all to do with empty buildings with"Funded by the EU" written on the side.
Not sure about that myself as I lack the local knowledge. But I do know there were a very large number of Leave voters for whom immigration was not the reason for their vote. Combined with the Remain vote they would represent far more than 50% of the population for whom a solution that did not end freedom of movement would be acceptable.
I think there are probably compromises that would be acceptable to the EU and a substantial number of Leave voters, though.
We could have a requirement - as in Switzerland - for immigrants to buy health insurance.
We could require, as happens under NAFTA for Canadian citizens, for people to be in receipt of a job offer before getting a work permit.
We could require, as happens in both Switzerland and Norway, registration with the local police station.
All those things could significantly reduce low skilled immigration, barely affect the City or technology industries, and allow us to have a deep relationship with the EU.
Yep - it is hard to believe that at least 10% or so of the Leave vote wasn't less focused on immigration and more focused on other issues like sovereignty. That certainly seemed to be at least close to the majority opinion among Leave backers on here. I know PB is not representative, but even so ...
I suspect it is too late now to do any of what you say above, but I think you are right that this could have got majority support among the electorate here. One of the reasons Brexit is proving so tricky is that we are so split. I can't help feeling that if May had looked for a solution acceptable to a majority of Leave and Remain voters, instead of one acceptable to the Daily Mail, we would be much closer to getting a deal done. Who knows, we might even still be in with a chance of hosting the European City of Culture in 2023!
Mr. 43, if it's the law, and it's clear, we can look forward to a similar approach being taken to demands for the so-called exit bill, with an itemised list.
Anyway, enough of this frivolity. Does nobody apart from me think that Australia are ridiculously short to win the first Test? They're just about evens now. There's rain around and the pitch is already taking spin. If England can scrape together another 150 runs, they are in great shape to take at least a draw, no?
The bookies are probably counting on an England batting collapse at some stage. That is not unreasonable.
Mr. Meeks, you must admit, the timing, waiting until submissions are made and only then saying nein, is a bit dickish.
Oh not just a bit, completely dickish. While under the pre-existing rules it seems to be a correct adjudication, you would have thought that this was a very simple way of the EU extending an olive twig in Britain's direction. The bureaucrats who signed off on this have behaved in a notably petty manner.
There is nothing to sign off on. The rules are completely clear. The programme is an EU one for member states, accession countries and potential accession countries that sign up to the EU's cultural programme. Accession countries are on a different timetable so the slot wouldn't be available to the UK if it could be designated somehow as an EU accession state. Otherwise the whole programme would have to be revised in the European Council and Parliament.
The UK DCMS knew all this but encouraged bidding cities to waste their money.
Isn't it open to EEA countries as well? Or do they view them as inevitably becoming part of the EU?
I think they are designated as accession countries. In principle EEA is a stepping stone to full membership.
Mr. Meeks, you must admit, the timing, waiting until submissions are made and only then saying nein, is a bit dickish.
Oh not just a bit, completely dickish. While under the pre-existing rules it seems to be a correct adjudication, you would have thought that this was a very simple way of the EU extending an olive twig in Britain's direction. The bureaucrats who signed off on this have behaved in a notably petty manner.
There is nothing to sign off on. The rules are completely clear. The programme is an EU one for member states, accession countries and potential accession countries that sign up to the EU's cultural programme. Accession countries are on a different timetable so the slot wouldn't be available to the UK if it could be designated somehow as an EU accession state. Otherwise the whole programme would have to be revised in the European Council and Parliament.
The UK DCMS knew all this but encouraged bidding cities to waste their money.
Rules can be changed. The EU would have been well-advised to have done exactly that. It would have been a pretty harmless gesture.
Instead they just look petty.
It's not petty. It's the law. I am surprised I am saying this to a lawyer. It can be repealed or revised but it would have to go through the full EP/EC cycle
As a lawyer I'm well aware that rules can be changed. It should not have been beyond the wit of man to do so here. The place that year had already been allocated to the UK so it isn't as if anyone would be losing out as a consequence.
But someone will be gaining now. Maybe it'll go to somewhere in Ireland!!
Also, you are a layer in a common law country. Post-Brexit, the EU is now even more civil law influenced. The civil law is an unbending, Napoleonic creature, is it not?
In South Wales it was nothing to do with immigration and all to do with empty buildings with"Funded by the EU" written on the side.
Not sure about that myself as I lack the local knowledge. But I do know there were a very large number of Leave voters for whom immigration was not the reason for their vote. Combined with the Remain vote they would represent far more than 50% of the population for whom a solution that did not end freedom of movement would be acceptable.
I thought opinion polls showed both sides wanted freedom of movement to end?
F1: I've just made three bets using my Betfair Sportsbook bonus which I got instead of the winnings I should've had for the Hamilton bet.
Because there's an expiry date these are a bit rushed, but what I backed were: safety car, evens Raikkonen podium, 4 Alonso, 2018 title each way (third the odds, top 2), 17
The last I've mentioned a lot. As for the safety car, lots of Abu Dhabi is tight and reliability can be wonky. Raikkonen has had many podium finishes recently so he should be around evensish.
Evens is about par for the SC from memory, Kimi is value at 4 for a podium. Not looked at any markets myself yet, will go watch the cars tomorrow and see after that.
Nicola Sturgeon has been mocked for claiming Philip Hammond’s £2 billion Budget boost for Scotland was a “con” after it emerged that her government had repeatedly lauded its own schemes using the same type of funding.
The First Minister had argued that the increase was illusory because £1.1 billion of the money came in the form of “financial transactions”, which can be used for capital schemes to boost the economy or housebuilding but not daily spending on public services.
But Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory leader, pointed out that the SNP has used hundreds of millions of pounds of the same transactions in its own budget in the last year.
In South Wales it was nothing to do with immigration and all to do with empty buildings with"Funded by the EU" written on the side.
Not sure about that myself as I lack the local knowledge. But I do know there were a very large number of Leave voters for whom immigration was not the reason for their vote. Combined with the Remain vote they would represent far more than 50% of the population for whom a solution that did not end freedom of movement would be acceptable.
Most of them upper middle class Leave voters like you.
I am sorry but you used working class Leave voters immigration concerns to win the referendum and if you and the 2 main parties now ignore them as they are no longer of use and just have a Leave vote to suit middle class Leavers things will get ugly and it will be UKIP and the far right who prosper.
Not sure if I qualify as Upper Middle Class.
Actually in all honesty I have no idea what these divisions mean or how they are differentiated.
I know lots of people who I suppose would be called working class (working in industry) who certainly did not vote leave because of immigration. I think it is far too simple an explanation and it is people trying to insist that it was their sort of Brexit that everyone voted for just makes the whole process a lot more difficult and likely to end up in a default hard Brexit.
Anyway, enough of this frivolity. Does nobody apart from me think that Australia are ridiculously short to win the first Test? They're just about evens now. There's rain around and the pitch is already taking spin. If England can scrape together another 150 runs, they are in great shape to take at least a draw, no?
Comments
Labour MPs pulled faces at Tory MP Paul Maynard who has cystic fibrosis
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/feb/08/charity-anger-mps-paul-maynard-disability
And on the substantive point, European Capital of Culture is open to 'potential candidates for membership', which I think we can all agree Turkey was back in 2010.
Being a 'potential candidate' is a long way from 'joining'.
"Eligibility is open to cities in EU member states, in countries that are candidates or potential candidates for membership, or in countries that are part of the European Economic Area (EEA)[1] - an example of the latter being Stavanger in Norway, which was a European Capital of Culture in 2008."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Capital_of_Culture
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/sites/creative-europe/files/capitals-culture-candidates-guide_en.pdf
I would have thought someone so knowledgeable about EU affairs would have pointed that out ...
Carswell's £350 million NHS poster nowhere to be seen.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
Because there's an expiry date these are a bit rushed, but what I backed were:
safety car, evens
Raikkonen podium, 4
Alonso, 2018 title each way (third the odds, top 2), 17
The last I've mentioned a lot. As for the safety car, lots of Abu Dhabi is tight and reliability can be wonky. Raikkonen has had many podium finishes recently so he should be around evensish.
Thanks for the update.
2) Saying that it's government policy that Turkey should join the EU is not the same thing as "Turkey is joining the EU"
3) Turkey was not joining the EU
Meanwhile, you have yet to give any reason for the poster that does not involve inflaming fears of millions of Muslims descending on Britain
You seem more worried about arguing that the lie is not a lie than arguing that the poster isn't xenophobic. Noted.
I await HYUFD's link confirming that Alan Clark married her when she was under 16 with interest.
Re the budget, I disagree with some of DavidL’s comments earlier in this thread. I think the idea that individuals are just accepting that wages will continue to be depressed because that is the world we live in now, or will come up accept so in the future is wishful thinking. Hammond’s budget wasn’t a disaster, it was a decent day for him in the sense there were no gaffes. But the budget doesn’t exactly transform the government’s fortunes either - a change in the image of the government is probably what would be required to make McDonnell’s spending plans look silly among Labour voters - Conservative voters views are likely to remain unchanged.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/6196255/Inside-the-lives-and-loves-of-Alan-Clark.html
The average wage in the UK is equivalent to $2,900 per month vs $1,278 in Poland. That has resulted in a large portion of Poland's 38 million population move over to the UK when they were able to.
The average wage in Turkey is $820 per month and they have a population of over 79 million.
That means there are more than twice as many Turks than Poles and the wage discrepancy is even greater. The potential number of low-wage people moving over is even greater than it was with all its consequential effects if you're concerned about that on issues like housing etc.
Pure numbers and maths, no xenophobia or religion or race.
So if anything is bollocks it is ant post saying ending free movement was not a key factor in the Leave vote.
1) Turkey was not joining the EU
2) Vast numbers of Turks were not coming to Britain now or any time in the foreseeable future
3) Vote Leave's own literature on the subject of Turkey helpfully highlighted Turkey's borders with Syria and Iraq, suggesting that they weren't flagging economic concerns
You and the other enthusiastic Leave supporters were complicit in a xenophobic lie. The country will be paying the price for this lace curtain racism for many years to come.
Nevertheless I am confident (say 70%) that the EEA or equivalent is where we will end up.
The EU is the only game in town in Europe. Up to now the UK has acted as a gateway between Europe and the World. It's a selling point. If we reject the EU, and effectively Europe, we are no longer a gateway. What would our replacement USP be?
Low cost is competing with countries like Turkey and Tunisia. We are not in that space. We don't have excess commodities. Value add is where we should be, but that requires being plugged in so we have stuff to add value to. We need broad and deep relationships. The EU is available and close by. There really isn't an alternative to it.
No-one has yet come up with a realistic and successful Brexit outcome for the UK that doesn't involve a deep and broad relationship with the European Union. Any such relationship will be on the EU's terms, so we need to know what they will offer and pick from what those offers. Broadly, the choice appears to be Canada, Norway or full membership. Canada doesn't deliver the broad and deep relationship that we need. We have rejected full membership in a referendum, although that is the best of the options in other respects.
Which leaves Norway/EEA by elimination. qed.
Not providing the NHS with an extra £350 million a week would not respect the Leave vote given Leave would not have got 52% without promising to provide it.
Wrong. The top 3 reasons people voted Leave were first, the principle that decisions affecting the UK should be taken in the UK, second, to regain control of immigration and UK borders and third over concern about lack of control over future EU membership and expansion.
Carswell's £350 million NHS poster nowhere to be seen.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
That is an accurate assessment - as a remainer those were the three reasons that came out of the leave campaign and while I voted remain I absolutely accept that is the basis of the vote
Remainers are trying to use the 350 million promise by leave as a lever towards their argument but it was one of many statements from both sides that was wildly exaggerated and both were equally responsible for ramping up their arguments
As an example, a friend of mine could probably be called a (verbally) battered husband, yet people not close to them might not see it like that. And extending that, we don't see other things that might happen in their relationship. Certainly their young daughter has said things that make it appear worryingly not all one-sided.
People project images of themselves. Couples project images of their marriages. Another anecdote: I was at a soiree with a couple where everything seemed fine: they were kissing and treating each other in the appropriate manner. A month or so later I heard they were getting divorced.
It was nothing to do with me, honest guv. At least, I don't think so ...
It's only an opinion but I don't think immigration was a big factor in the Welsh Brexit vote, certainly not in the valleys where immigration has little resonance.
The empty buildings* thing was a flippant but metaphorical comment on what I do think was a bigger driving force.... ie: the emptiness and wastefulness of human beings in the valleys rust belt. The status quo has done nothing for the upper valleys and Brexit was a more an anguished vote for change, I guess.
*The EU are very good at claiming the plaudits for new, shiny things in Wales. Given that we are Objective 1 (basically too useless to look after ourselves) the EU probably assume we are too stupid to realise that EU Objective 1 money is basically our recycled taxes.
https://twitter.com/GregHands/status/933718982493900800
I think the government has been under such pressure recently that they took extra care to avoid adding to their list of the problems.
Or am I thinking of Sir Robert Peel?
Still, now that the noted South Wales Brexit expert @HYUFD has opined we shouldn't really say anything else on the matter.
As for the government's fortunes, I was rather focussing on the fortunes of Labour. They have had a bad 48 hours and you haven't often been able to say that after a Tory budget.
Ps the Ken Clarke story is excellent and made me like him even more.
Wrong. The top 3 reasons people voted Leave were first, the principle that decisions affecting the UK should be taken in the UK, second, to regain control of immigration and UK borders and third over concern about lack of control over future EU membership and expansion.
Carswell's £350 million NHS poster nowhere to be seen.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
That is an accurate assessment - as a remainer those were the three reasons that came out of the leave campaign and while I voted remain I absolutely accept that is the basis of the vote
Remainers are trying to use the 350 million promise by leave as a lever towards their argument but it was one of many statements from both sides that was wildly exaggerated and both were equally responsible for ramping up their arguments
--------------------------------------------------------
If the £350 million promise only influenced 5% of the Leave vote to vote Leave, my point remains valid. Leave would not have got over 50% without that promise.
I made the point to show the flaw in HYUFD's argument that Leave wouldn't have got 52% without the promise on immigration. He's right but it is not all the 52% by any means. Joining the EEA might satisfy say 5% of Leave voters which would put it under 50%.
Wrong. The top 3 reasons people voted Leave were first, the principle that decisions affecting the UK should be taken in the UK, second, to regain control of immigration and UK borders and third over concern about lack of control over future EU membership and expansion.
Carswell's £350 million NHS poster nowhere to be seen.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
'That is an accurate assessment - as a remainer those were the three reasons that came out of the leave campaign and while I voted remain I absolutely accept that is the basis of the vote
Remainers are trying to use the 350 million promise by leave as a lever towards their argument but it was one of many statements from both sides that was wildly exaggerated and both were equally responsible for ramping up their arguments'
Indeed and several polls had Leave ahead before that absurd poster, by the final week most polls had Remain ahead
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/578284/Impact_of_the_UK_Decision_to_Leave_the_EU.pdf
And full rules:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/578282/Rules_of_Procedure_for_the_2023_European_Capital_of_Culture_in_the_UK.pdf
That is an accurate assessment - as a remainer those were the three reasons that came out of the leave campaign and while I voted remain I absolutely accept that is the basis of the vote
Remainers are trying to use the 350 million promise by leave as a lever towards their argument but it was one of many statements from both sides that was wildly exaggerated and both were equally responsible for ramping up their arguments
--------------------------------------------------------
If the £350 million promise only influenced 5% of the Leave vote to vote Leave, my point remains valid. Leave would not have got over 50% without that promise.
I made the point to show the flaw in HYUFD's argument that Leave wouldn't have got 52% without the promise on immigration. He's right but it is not all the 52% by any means. Joining the EEA might satisfy say 5% of Leave voters which would put it under 50%.
Conversely project fear had a real impact including my remain vote and it was probably worth more remain votes than the 350 million for leave
Newport is a poor shithole. Immigration was probably more salient there.
I know the recent terror links to Newport have shocked a few people round here.
I certainly wouldn't walk round Pill, Maindee or Ringland at night. Dangerous areas.
Merthyr is a great place. Salt of the earth. Absolutely bonkers night out in Merthyr.
'That is an accurate assessment - as a remainer those were the three reasons that came out of the leave campaign and while I voted remain I absolutely accept that is the basis of the vote
Remainers are trying to use the 350 million promise by leave as a lever towards their argument but it was one of many statements from both sides that was wildly exaggerated and both were equally responsible for ramping up their arguments
--------------------------------------------------------
If the £350 million promise only influenced 5% of the Leave vote to vote Leave, my point remains valid. Leave would not have got over 50% without that promise.
I made the point to show the flaw in HYUFD's argument that Leave wouldn't have got 52% without the promise on immigration. He's right but it is not all the 52% by any means. Joining the EEA might satisfy say 5% of Leave voters which would put it under 50%.'
Wrong, as several polls had Leave over 50% even before that poster, in large part because of concerns over immigration due to Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004.
In a decade or so once we have reduced EU immigration the EEA may be an option, not now.
Though 'negotiation' would appear to be 'unilateral decision by the EU'.......
The UK DCMS knew all this but encouraged bidding cities to waste their money.
Even London 2012, which might actually leave a positive physical legacy (unusually for the Olympics) could have achieved the same redevelopment end result for an order of magnitude less money.
Witness also Heseltine's Garden Festivals, whose successes are very varied.
We could have a requirement - as in Switzerland - for immigrants to buy health insurance.
We could require, as happens under NAFTA for Canadian citizens, for people to be in receipt of a job offer before getting a work permit.
We could require, as happens in both Switzerland and Norway, registration with the local police station.
All those things could significantly reduce low skilled immigration, barely affect the City or technology industries, and allow us to have a deep relationship with the EU.
Instead they just look petty.
Re Labour, I’ve heard more about them having a terrible time of it on here than elsewhere tbh. Corbyn’s response didn’t seem to gage much reaction either way, and wasn’t presented in a negative way on BBC news last night. PMQs yesterday didn’t seem great for Corbyn on here, but looking at the punditry on twitter there seemed to be no real enthusiasm for either his or May’s performance. The only thing that’s ‘bad’ for Labour that I’ve heard about is that McDonnell hasn’t had good interviews, but then that’s no change from before.
I think the more long-term issue is that the kind of problems likely to make voters consider Corbyn and stay on his team are still going to be there for the government years down the line: Brexit fallout, decline in living standards, housing crisis.
I am sorry but you used working class Leave voters immigration concerns to win the referendum and if you and the 2 main parties now ignore them as they are no longer of use and just have a Leave vote to suit middle class Leavers things will get ugly and it will be UKIP and the far right who prosper.
I suspect it is too late now to do any of what you say above, but I think you are right that this could have got majority support among the electorate here. One of the reasons Brexit is proving so tricky is that we are so split. I can't help feeling that if May had looked for a solution acceptable to a majority of Leave and Remain voters, instead of one acceptable to the Daily Mail, we would be much closer to getting a deal done. Who knows, we might even still be in with a chance of hosting the European City of Culture in 2023!
Ahem.
Also, you are a layer in a common law country. Post-Brexit, the EU is now even more civil law influenced. The civil law is an unbending, Napoleonic creature, is it not?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-eu-freedom-of-movement-scrap-free-trade-europe-keep-uk-survey-a7641541.html
The First Minister had argued that the increase was illusory because £1.1 billion of the money came in the form of “financial transactions”, which can be used for capital schemes to boost the economy or housebuilding but not daily spending on public services.
But Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory leader, pointed out that the SNP has used hundreds of millions of pounds of the same transactions in its own budget in the last year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/23/nicola-sturgeon-mocked-claim-half-2-billion-budget-boost-wrong/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Actually in all honesty I have no idea what these divisions mean or how they are differentiated.
I know lots of people who I suppose would be called working class (working in industry) who certainly did not vote leave because of immigration. I think it is far too simple an explanation and it is people trying to insist that it was their sort of Brexit that everyone voted for just makes the whole process a lot more difficult and likely to end up in a default hard Brexit.
(Gratuitous Paddington reference).
https://twitter.com/msjulielenarz/status/933664044967518208
Do let me know if you see rain on the horizon
Its coming when not if.