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.
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 It can be repealed or revised but it would have to go through the full EP/EC cycle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.
Indeed the year had been allocated. Nevertheless the programme no longer applies and cannot apply to the UK unless there's a new decision made to the effect by the European Council and European Parliament.
I suppose thinking about it, it could be included in the A50 Withdrawal Agreement if we cough up the €50 billion and sort out Ireland etc. Perhaps the Eurocrats could have said that by default it wasn't happening but there might be a decision in 18 months time to allow it. What they can't do is allow the UK programme to proceed now.
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
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.
Indeed the year had been allocated. Nevertheless the programme no longer applies and cannot apply to the UK unless there's a new decision made to the effect by the European Council and European Parliament.
I suppose thinking about it, it could be included in the A50 Withdrawal Agreement if we cough up the €50 billion and sort out Ireland etc. Perhaps the Eurocrats could have said that by default it wasn't happening but there might be a decision in 18 months time to allow it. What they can't do is allow the UK programme to proceed now.
"Can't" is a silly word. The way in which this particular rule works was almost certainly unintended at the time. So like any glitch in the law at any level, it should be corrected.
Wasn't this a very good - missed - opportunity for the EU to show that its vision of Europe, including European culture, continues to include the UK in some ways? The idea of European culture without Britain's contribution is a much diminished culture. It reflects far worse on the EU than it does on Britain.
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.
Indeed the year had been allocated. Nevertheless the programme no longer applies and cannot apply to the UK unless there's a new decision made to the effect by the European Council and European Parliament.
I suppose thinking about it, it could be included in the A50 Withdrawal Agreement if we cough up the €50 billion and sort out Ireland etc. Perhaps the Eurocrats could have said that by default it wasn't happening but there might be a decision in 18 months time to allow it. What they can't do is allow the UK programme to proceed now.
Why can't we just declare our own European City of Culture? Let the bids be decided by the UK.
We'll still be part of Europe after we leave the EU.
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.
The idea we should not pursue a Brexit that would get the backing of most people in the UK because it might mean UKIP getting a few votes is pretty absurd, as is the idea that working class Leave voters are so emotionally and politically incontinent that they will resort to violence if they do not get their way. Why wouldn't the same apply to working class Remain voters?
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.
But labour's spending and borrowing plans make things worse as they do not address productivity.
McDonnell has had a 'stinker' since the budget as his plans come under scrutiny like never before
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution that was consistent with the way in which the vote had been won, and within that seek to ensure a version that was acceptable to the widest possible number.
The reformulation you adopt is very popular among those Leavers who remained subterranean during the referendum campaign but who now seek to surf on the back of it to achieve a solution that would never have been adopted if it had been actively campaigned for.
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
What do you expect to be the relationship of the UK (or the components of the UK) with the EU 10 years from now?
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?
A Yougov poll on 8th June 2016 showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing.
Whilst that is a minority of Leave voters it is still a substantial number which, when added to Remain voters would, I would have thought, mean a clear majority of the electorate supporting the retention of freedom of movement in order to keep access to the Single Market.
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.
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.
The idea we should not pursue a Brexit that would get the backing of most people in the UK because it might mean UKIP getting a few votes is pretty absurd, as is the idea that working class Leave voters are so emotionally and politically incontinent that they will resort to violence if they do not get their way. Why wouldn't the same apply to working class Remain voters?
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution that was consistent with the way in which the vote had been won, and within that seek to ensure a version that was acceptable to the widest possible number. .
No, to you the premise is completely wrong. Given there is no way to define how much of what arguments swayed people with any degree of certainty, while it was probably a good idea to find a solution for instance which included strong immigration controls (not least because even lots of remainers find it a concern, and even the young barely have a positive opinion of immigration), it was absolutely the job of the government to find a solution acceptable to the largest number of people.
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
What do you expect to be the relationship of the UK (or the components of the UK) with the EU 10 years from now?
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution that was consistent with the way in which the vote had been won, and within that seek to ensure a version that was acceptable to the widest possible number. .
No, to you the premise is completely wrong. Given there is no way to define how much of what arguments swayed people with any degree of certainty, while it was probably a good idea to find a solution for instance which included strong immigration controls (not least because even lots of remainers find it a concern, and even the young barely have a positive opinion of immigration), it was absolutely the job of the government to find a solution acceptable to the largest number of people.
Leave fought on a prospectus. The public is entitled to see it put into operation on its main points.
Anything else is contemptuous of democracy. It's remarkable how elastic some Leavers' respect for the democratic process is when it gets to bits that don't suit them.
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
What do you expect to be the relationship of the UK (or the components of the UK) with the EU 10 years from now?
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
What do you expect to be the relationship of the UK (or the components of the UK) with the EU 10 years from now?
For 95 % of Uk and EU citizens the relationship will be almost indistinguishable to what it is now.
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution that was consistent with the way in which the vote had been won, and within that seek to ensure a version that was acceptable to the widest possible number.
The reformulation you adopt is very popular among those Leavers who remained subterranean during the referendum campaign but who now seek to surf on the back of it to achieve a solution that would never have been adopted if it had been actively campaigned for.
Hmmm - surely the government's responsibility is to find a Brexit outcome that would be supported by the majority of the electorate. Whether you (we) like it or not, some people voted Leave for reasons that had nothing to do with immigration, while others voted Remain despite concerns over immigration. There was a Brexit consensus waiting to be built around the middle ground and it should have been built.
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution that was consistent with the way in which the vote had been won, and within that seek to ensure a version that was acceptable to the widest possible number.
The reformulation you adopt is very popular among those Leavers who remained subterranean during the referendum campaign but who now seek to surf on the back of it to achieve a solution that would never have been adopted if it had been actively campaigned for.
I find the idea that I was 'subterranean' during the Brexit campaign highly amusing. I was so under the radar I was making bets with other PB posters that we would end up in the EEA and writing thread headers arguing for that result.
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.
But labour's spending and borrowing plans make things worse as they do not address productivity.
McDonnell has had a 'stinker' since the budget as his plans come under scrutiny like never before
Re the first point, I’m not championing Labour’s spending and borrowing plans, I didn’t vote Labour at the last GE after all.
My point is I doubt voters will be voting on the back of how relevant productivity is to depressed wages. They’ll likely be voting on whether they feel better or worse off.
McDonnell has a stinker literally every time he has to explain his economic plans this is hardly a new thing. Labour did well in June in spite of McDonnell not because loads of voters thought he was the new Keynes.
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
What do you expect to be the relationship of the UK (or the components of the UK) with the EU 10 years from now?
Cameron predicted WW3.
He didn't. This is a perfect example of a Leave lie told so regularly that Leavers now sincerely believe it to be true.
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution that was consistent with the way in which the vote had been won, and within that seek to ensure a version that was acceptable to the widest possible number. .
No, to you the premise is completely wrong. Given there is no way to define how much of what arguments swayed people with any degree of certainty, while it was probably a good idea to find a solution for instance which included strong immigration controls (not least because even lots of remainers find it a concern, and even the young barely have a positive opinion of immigration), it was absolutely the job of the government to find a solution acceptable to the largest number of people.
Leave fought on a prospectus. The public is entitled to see it put into operation on its main points.
Anything else is contemptuous of democracy. It's remarkable how elastic some Leavers' respect for the democratic process is when it gets to bits that don't suit them.
I have to agree with Alistair Meeks here, working class Leave voters were certainly not voting to regain powers over widget making from Brussels, we all know what they were voting for.
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution that was consistent with the way in which the vote had been won, and within that seek to ensure a version that was acceptable to the widest possible number. .
No, to you the premise is completely wrong. Given there is no way to define how much of what arguments swayed people with any degree of certainty, while it was probably a good idea to find a solution for instance which included strong immigration controls (not least because even lots of remainers find it a concern, and even the young barely have a positive opinion of immigration), it was absolutely the job of the government to find a solution acceptable to the largest number of people.
Leave fought on a prospectus. The public is entitled to see it put into operation on its main points.
Anything else is contemptuous of democracy. It's remarkable how elastic some Leavers' respect for the democratic process is when it gets to bits that don't suit them.
I have to agree with Alistair Meeks here, working class Leave voters were certainly not voting to regain powers over widget making from Brussels, we all know what they were voting for.
They saw Cameron go over to Brussels , make a reasonable request to change policy and saw him humiliated by people they didn't vote for.
The shocking result of the referendum was that it was even close.
Mr. Sandpit, I remember a couple of years ago there was excitement about the prospect of a small shower in a practice session.
Indeed, as the number of races in the season has increased, so the last race has got later in the year. Rain has been around for a week or so, but it’s stayed in the mountains so far. It’s been quite cold too, only went up to 27C today. Brrr...
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.
You are certainly middle class not working class.
We can all produce exceptions, there were some middle class Leave voters concerned about immigration too but it was the working class who won it for Leave and it was immigration which drove their vote. A majority of the middle class voted Remain.
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution that was consistent with the way in which the vote had been won, and within that seek to ensure a version that was acceptable to the widest possible number. .
No, to you the premise is completely wrong. Given there is no way to define how much of what arguments swayed people with any degree of certainty, while it was probably a good idea to find a solution for instance which included strong immigration controls (not least because even lots of remainers find it a concern, and even the young barely have a positive opinion of immigration), it was absolutely the job of the government to find a solution acceptable to the largest number of people.
Leave fought on a prospectus. The public is entitled to see it put into operation on its main points.
Anything else is contemptuous of democracy. It's remarkable how elastic some Leavers' respect for the democratic process is when it gets to bits that don't suit them.
I have to agree with Alistair Meeks here, working class Leave voters were certainly not voting to regain powers over widget making from Brussels, we all know what they were voting for.
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution that was consistent with the way in which the vote had been won, and within that seek to ensure a version that was acceptable to the widest possible number. .
No, to you the premise is completely wrong. Given there is no way to define how much of what arguments swayed people with any degree of certainty, while it was probably a good idea to find a solution for instance which included strong immigration controls (not least because even lots of remainers find it a concern, and even the young barely have a positive opinion of immigration), it was absolutely the job of the government to find a solution acceptable to the largest number of people.
Leave fought on a prospectus. The public is entitled to see it put into operation on its main points.
Anything else is contemptuous of democracy. It's remarkable how elastic some Leavers' respect for the democratic process is when it gets to bits that don't suit them.
Given you have exhibited time and time again that you have no idea why people voted Leave and you yourself vehemently opposed it you are about as objective a commentator on this as the Pope is on the writings of Richard Dawkins.
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
What do you expect to be the relationship of the UK (or the components of the UK) with the EU 10 years from now?
Cameron predicted WW3.
He didn't. This is a perfect example of a Leave lie told so regularly that Leavers now sincerely believe it to be true.
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.
But labour's spending and borrowing plans make things worse as they do not address productivity.
McDonnell has had a 'stinker' since the budget as his plans come under scrutiny like never before
Re the first point, I’m not championing Labour’s spending and borrowing plans, I didn’t vote Labour at the last GE after all.
My point is I doubt voters will be voting on the back of how relevant productivity is to depressed wages. They’ll likely be voting on whether they feel better or worse off.
McDonnell has a stinker literally every time he has to explain his economic plans this is hardly a new thing. Labour did well in June in spite of McDonnell not because loads of voters thought he was the new Keynes.
I do understand and to an extent accept your points apart from McDonnell at the GE. TM gave labour and McDonnell a free pass and if anthing the last 24 hours has shown it is that McDonnell buckles under pressure and he really lost it with Rachel Burden on 5 live this morning who asked a genuine question that deserved a suitable response
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution that was consistent with the way in which the vote had been won, and within that seek to ensure a version that was acceptable to the widest possible number. .
No, to you the premise is completely wrong. Given d a solution acceptable to the largest number of people.
Leave fought on a prospectus. The public is entitled to see it put into operation on its main points.
Anything else is contemptuous of democracy. It's remarkable how elastic some Leavers' respect for the democratic process is when it gets to bits that don't suit them.
I have to agree with Alistair Meeks here, working class Leave voters were certainly not voting to regain powers over widget making from Brussels, we all know what they were voting for.
They saw Cameron go over to Brussels , make a reasonable request to change policy and saw him humiliated by people they didn't vote for.
The shocking result of the referendum was that it was even close.
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution that was consistent with the way in which the vote had been won, and within that seek to ensure a version that was acceptable to the widest possible number.
The reformulation you adopt is very popular among those Leavers who remained subterranean during the referendum campaign but who now seek to surf on the back of it to achieve a solution that would never have been adopted if it had been actively campaigned for.
I was posting on here (and arguing) on here dozens of times a day during the campaign. And fighting a ground campaign in the evenings. And writing my own views on the vote down in a lengthy blog post.
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution that was consistent with the way in which the vote had been won, and within that seek to ensure a version that was acceptable to the widest possible number. .
No, to you the premise is completely wrong. Given there is no way to define how much of what arguments swayed people with any degree of certainty, while it was probably a good idea to find a solution for instance which included strong immigration controls (not least because even lots of remainers find it a concern, and even the young barely have a positive opinion of immigration), it was absolutely the job of the government to find a solution acceptable to the largest number of people.
Leave fought on a prospectus. The public is entitled to see it put into operation on its main points.
Anything else is contemptuous of democracy. It's remarkable how elastic some Leavers' respect for the democratic process is when it gets to bits that don't suit them.
I have to agree with Alistair Meeks here, working class Leave voters were certainly not voting to regain powers over widget making from Brussels, we all know what they were voting for.
I remember seeing this doing the rounds on social media and I thought that sounded a bit fishy. Gove could cause an argument in an empty lift and certainly politicians can say some dumb shit, but it just didn't pass the smell test.
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
What do you expect to be the relationship of the UK (or the components of the UK) with the EU 10 years from now?
Cameron predicted WW3.
He didn't. This is a perfect example of a Leave lie told so regularly that Leavers now sincerely believe it to be true.
Precisely, the lie is well documented in that article.
In other news, why on earth is anyone surprised that the medium-term prospects for the UK economy are now expected to be as predicted before the referendum?
BT's coverage was absolutely fine, but it was totally vanilla. Nothing wrong with it, but no real in depth analysis in the way we have come to expect from Gary Neville doing the footy etc. Also, no innovations in the way when CH4 first got the cricket they rethought the whole way the cricket should be covered.
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution that was consistent with the way in which the vote had been won, and within that seek to ensure a version that was acceptable to the widest possible number. .
No, to you the premise is completely wrong. Given there is no way to define how much of what arguments swayed people with any degree of certainty, while it was probably a good idea to find a solution for instance which included strong immigration controls (not least because even lots of remainers find it a concern, and even the young barely have a positive opinion of immigration), it was absolutely the job of the government to find a solution acceptable to the largest number of people.
Leave fought on a prospectus. The public is entitled to see it put into operation on its main points.
Anything else is contemptuous of democracy. It's remarkable how elastic some Leavers' respect for the democratic process is when it gets to bits that don't suit them.
I have to agree with Alistair Meeks here, working class Leave voters were certainly not voting to regain powers over widget making from Brussels, we all know what they were voting for.
"we all know what they were voting for" - why? Are you cleverer than them or posher than them, or what?
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.
But labour's spending and borrowing plans make things worse as they do not address productivity.
McDonnell has had a 'stinker' since the budget as his plans come under scrutiny like never before
Re the first point, I’m not championing Labour’s spending and borrowing plans, I didn’t vote Labour at the last GE after all.
My point is I doubt voters will be voting on the back of how relevant productivity is to depressed wages. They’ll likely be voting on whether they feel better or worse off.
McDonnell has a stinker literally every time he has to explain his economic plans this is hardly a new thing. Labour did well in June in spite of McDonnell not because loads of voters thought he was the new Keynes.
I do understand and to an extent accept your points apart from McDonnell at the GE. TM gave labour and McDonnell a free pass and if anthing the last 24 hours has shown it is that McDonnell buckles under pressure and he really lost it with Rachel Burden on 5 live this morning who asked a genuine question that deserved a suitable response
Today shows how much of a mistake it was to keep Hammond out of the election campaign. He did a good job yesterday of explaining the situation we’re in, and people are slowly coming to understand that there’s no easy way out and borrowing your way into even more debt certainly isn’t going to work. McDonnell has been shown up in the last 24 hours, his policy makes no sense and his numbers aren’t even close to adding up.
Precisely, the lie is well documented in that article.
In other news, why on earth is anyone surprised that the medium-term prospects for the UK economy are now expected to be as predicted before the referendum?
The growth rates remain to be seen. I haven't seen any recession predicted for the whole period of the Brexit process yet, as was predicted by several organisations prior to the vote.
I'd expect it to take 5-10 years to get back to or exceed previous rates. We have to complete Brexit first and strike new trade deals and deregulate/reregulate in other areas.
And, yes; I knew this and factored it in prior to the Vote.
Apart from Corbyn, who might scrub much of that for another decade, and seems to be a one-man ticking economic suicide bomb waiting to be detonated by a deluded electoral base.
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution that was consistent with the way in which the vote had been won, and within that seek to ensure a version that was acceptable to the widest possible number.
The reformulation you adopt is very popular among those Leavers who remained subterranean during the referendum campaign but who now seek to surf on the back of it to achieve a solution that would never have been adopted if it had been actively campaigned for.
I was posting on here (and arguing) on here dozens of times a day during the campaign. And fighting a ground campaign in the evenings. And writing my own views on the vote down in a lengthy blog post.
I take it you were distributing the Vote Leave literature in the evenings.
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
What do you expect to be the relationship of the UK (or the components of the UK) with the EU 10 years from now?
Cameron predicted WW3.
He didn't. This is a perfect example of a Leave lie told so regularly that Leavers now sincerely believe it to be true.
"Isolationism has never served this country well. Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.
We have always had to go back in, and always at a much higher cost.
The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price that this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.
Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?
I would never be so rash as to make that assumption.
The interpretation put on his words was this:
"Cameron reminded voters that leaving the EU would allow for the possibility of tension between friendly neighbouring EU countries, as we have seen before in the previous two world wars and less major wars in-between, where Britain went head to head against France and Germany."
But I'm sure he had no intention of people reaching that conclusion, No sirree....
Anyway, I must be off. Despite the location, the Abu Dhabi weekend occurs on normal (for UK) times, so the pre-qualifying and pre-race articles should be up at the normal sort of time.
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.
But labour's spending and borrowing plans make things worse as they do not address productivity.
McDonnell has had a 'stinker' since the budget as his plans come under scrutiny like never before
Re the first point, I’m not championing Labour’s spending and borrowing plans, I didn’t vote Labour at the last GE after all.
My point is I doubt voters will be voting on the back of how relevant productivity is to depressed wages. They’ll likely be voting on whether they feel better or worse off.
McDonnell has a stinker literally every time he has to explain his economic plans this is hardly a new thing. Labour did well in June in spite of McDonnell not because loads of voters thought he was the new Keynes.
I do understand and to an extent accept your points apart from McDonnell at the GE. TM gave labour and McDonnell a free pass and if anthing the last 24 hours has shown it is that McDonnell buckles under pressure and he really lost it with Rachel Burden on 5 live this morning who asked a genuine question that deserved a suitable response
I don’t think TM and Hammond gave Labour a pass per se, it’s just that they aren’t very good. Hammond isn’t exactly rated that much more than McDonnell as a recent YouGov poll showed. Then there’s Brexit, which has seemed to put a spanner in the works of the Tories’ image of economic competence. Shortly after the ref result Osborne dropped the surplus target, it was a sign of things to come.
McDonnell being a bit of an angry man isn’t that much of surprise, he has a history of it especially with his comments towards Esther McVey. I remember Dead Ringers satirising him precisely because he buckled under pressure.
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
What do you expect to be the relationship of the UK (or the components of the UK) with the EU 10 years from now?
Cameron predicted WW3.
He didn't. This is a perfect example of a Leave lie told so regularly that Leavers now sincerely believe it to be true.
"Isolationism has never served this country well. Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.
We have always had to go back in, and always at a much higher cost.
The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price that this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.
Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?
I would never be so rash as to make that assumption.
The interpretation put on his words was this:
"Cameron reminded voters that leaving the EU would allow for the possibility of tension between friendly neighbouring EU countries, as we have seen before in the previous two world wars and less major wars in-between, where Britain went head to head against France and Germany."
But I'm sure he had no intention of people reaching that conclusion, No sirree....
I'm glad that you confirm that David Cameron at no point referred to World War 3 and that this was a straight lie by the Leave camp. His words that you highlight are of course entirely sensible and should be a guiding consideration for British foreign policy throughout the ages.
It's remarkable that Leave supporters think that they are in any way controversial. That was an early indicator of just how loopy they are.
Anyway, I must be off. Despite the location, the Abu Dhabi weekend occurs on normal (for UK) times, so the pre-qualifying and pre-race articles should be up at the normal sort of time.
Yes, like Bahrain it’s a twilight race so standard ish European-race timings. P1 at 9am UK time tomorrow, qualy and race both at 1pm (5pm local)
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution r.
The reformulation you adopt is very popular for.
I was posting on here (and arguing) on here dozens of times a day during the campaign. And fighting a ground campaign in the evenings. And writing my own views on the vote down in a lengthy blog post.
I take it you were distributing the Vote Leave literature in the evenings.
I ordered, paid for, and distributed the 5 positive reasons to vote to leave the EU literature. And only those.
I was satisfied with what I was delivering. I didn't deliver Turkey leaflets.
If you don't believe me I was given free crap about "your money being spent on bridges in Greece rather than potholes in the U.K.", which I refused to deliver.
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.
But labour's spending and borrowing plans make things worse as they do not address productivity.
McDonnell has had a 'stinker' since the budget as his plans come under scrutiny like never before
Re the first point, I’m not championing Labour’s spending and borrowing plans, I didn’t vote Labour at the last GE after all.
My point is I doubt voters will be voting on the back of how relevant productivity is to depressed wages. They’ll likely be voting on whether they feel better or worse off.
McDonnell has a stinker literally every time he has to explain his economic plans this is hardly a new thing. Labour did well in June in spite of McDonnell not because loads of voters thought he was the new Keynes.
I do understand and to an extent accept your points apart from McDonnell at the GE. TM gave labour and McDonnell a free pass and if anthing the last 24 hours has shown it is that McDonnell buckles under pressure and he really lost it with Rachel Burden on 5 live this morning who asked a genuine question that deserved a suitable response
I don’t think TM and Hammond gave Labour a pass per se, it’s just that they aren’t very good. Hammond isn’t exactly rated that much more than McDonnell as a recent YouGov poll showed. Then there’s Brexit, which has seemed to put a spanner in the works of the Tories’ image of economic competence. Shortly after the ref result Osborne dropped the surplus target, it was a sign of things to come.
McDonnell being a bit of an angry man isn’t that much of surprise, he has a history of it especially with his comments towards Esther McVey. I remember Dead Ringers satirising him precisely because he buckled under pressure.
If the evidence of the last 24 hours is to go by he will not only buckle but explode in a GE focussing on economic competence
I'm glad that you confirm that David Cameron at no point referred to World War 3 and that this was a straight lie by the Leave camp. His words that you highlight are of course entirely sensible and should be a guiding consideration for British foreign policy throughout the ages.
It's remarkable that Leave supporters think that they are in any way controversial. That was an early indicator of just how loopy they are.
So:
Isolationism -->turn our back on Europe --> regret it --> back in, much higher cost --> serried rows of white headstones --> to restore peace in Europe --> assured? --> risk worth taking? ---> rash to make that assumption...
What was he talking about then? Give me a rational explanation how I am not supposed to get the dark message that Brexit would lead to a repeat of the past....of its serried rows of white headstones across Europe. A series of bizarre gardening accidents maybe?
Precisely, the lie is well documented in that article.
In other news, why on earth is anyone surprised that the medium-term prospects for the UK economy are now expected to be as predicted before the referendum?
It depends what you mean by "predict"; he is certainly saying or at least suggesting that there is a higher probability of major conflict with us out than in. Certainly if WW3 does break out next year I'd expect a reverse ferret from the remainariat on the lines of "Look, brexit has caused WW3 exactly as Cameron predicted, but you didn't listen".".
The growth rates remain to be seen. I haven't seen any recession predicted for the whole period of the Brexit process yet, as was predicted by several organisations prior to the vote.
I'd expect it to take 5-10 years to get back to or exceed previous rates. We have to complete Brexit first and strike new trade deals and deregulate/reregulate in other areas.
And, yes; I knew this and factored it in prior to the Vote.
Apart from Corbyn, who might scrub much of that for another decade, and seems to be a one-man ticking economic suicide bomb waiting to be detonated by a deluded electoral base.
The predicted growth rates are of course just predictions, which like all long-term economic forecasts will be wrong. Let's hope they are wrong in the direction of being much too pessimistic.
Of course a Corbyn government would guarantee that they would be wrong in the other direction, and hugely so. Unfortunately we can't rule that out.
Precisely, the lie is well documented in that article.
In other news, why on earth is anyone surprised that the medium-term prospects for the UK economy are now expected to be as predicted before the referendum?
The growth rates remain to be seen. I haven't seen any recession predicted for the whole period of the Brexit process yet, as was predicted by several organisations prior to the vote.
I'd expect it to take 5-10 years to get back to or exceed previous rates. We have to complete Brexit first and strike new trade deals and deregulate/reregulate in other areas.
And, yes; I knew this and factored it in prior to the Vote.
Apart from Corbyn, who might scrub much of that for another decade, and seems to be a one-man ticking economic suicide bomb waiting to be detonated by a deluded electoral base.
Funny - we saw the same thing and went in opposite directions. From my perspective, accepting 5 to 10 more years of slower growth and stagnating incomes means that once we get to the other side, things will have deteriorated for 5 to 10 more years in terms of public services and living standards. That means another 5 to 10 years to get us back to where we were and then more time on top of that to get us to where we would have been if we had stayed. And that is a long time. For not a hugely significant upside. This is not refighting the referendum, just an observation that rational, reasonably intelligent people can see exactly the same thing and react in very different ways. Which is pretty obvious when you think about it.
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.
But labour's spending and borrowing plans make things worse as they do not address productivity.
McDonnell has had a 'stinker' since the budget as his plans come under scrutiny like never before
Re the first point, I’m not championing Labour’s spending and borrowing plans, I didn’t vote Labour at the last GE after all.
My point is I doubt voters will be voting on the back of how relevant productivity is to depressed wages. They’ll likely be voting on whether they feel better or worse off.
McDonnell has a stinker literally every time he has to explain his economic plans this is hardly a new thing. Labour did well in June in spite of McDonnell not because loads of voters thought he was the new Keynes.
I do understand and to an extent accept your points apart from McDonnell at the GE. TM gave labour and McDonnell a free pass and if anthing the last 24 hours has shown it is that McDonnell buckles under pressure and he really lost it with Rachel Burden on 5 live this morning who asked a genuine question that deserved a suitable response
I don’t think TM and Hammond gave Labour a pass per se, it’s just that they aren’t very good. Hammond isn’t exactly rated that much more than McDonnell as a recent YouGov poll showed. Then there’s Brexit, which has seemed to put a spanner in the works of the Tories’ image of economic competence. Shortly after the ref result Osborne dropped the surplus target, it was a sign of things to come.
McDonnell being a bit of an angry man isn’t that much of surprise, he has a history of it especially with his comments towards Esther McVey. I remember Dead Ringers satirising him precisely because he buckled under pressure.
If the evidence of the last 24 hours is to go by he will not only buckle but explode in a GE focussing on economic competence
That depends on what the economy is like when the election is fought. Another four years of public spending freezes and stagnating living standards, and the Tories are going to struggle to make the campaign all about Labour.
Precisely, the lie is well documented in that article.
In other news, why on earth is anyone surprised that the medium-term prospects for the UK economy are now expected to be as predicted before the referendum?
The growth rates remain to be seen. I haven't seen any recession predicted for the whole period of the Brexit process yet, as was predicted by several organisations prior to the vote.
I'd expect it to take 5-10 years to get back to or exceed previous rates. We have to complete Brexit first and strike new trade deals and deregulate/reregulate in other areas.
And, yes; I knew this and factored it in prior to the Vote.
Apart from Corbyn, who might scrub much of that for another decade, and seems to be a one-man ticking economic suicide bomb waiting to be detonated by a deluded electoral base.
Funny - we saw the same thing and went in opposite directions. From my perspective, accepting 5 to 10 more years of slower growth and stagnating incomes means that once we get to the other side, things will have deteriorated for 5 to 10 more years in terms of public services and living standards. That means another 5 to 10 years to get us back to where we were and then more time on top of that to get us to where we would have been if we had stayed. And that is a long time. For not a hugely significant upside. This is not refighting the referendum, just an observation that rational, reasonably intelligent people can see exactly the same thing and react in very different ways. Which is pretty obvious when you think about it.
Yes. We know it wasn't all about the money as well, of course.
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.
I can believe that the pitch will quicken as it dries, which may make it easier to score faster than England did on Day 1. But the point about spin and the moisture was put to Glen McGrath who questioned whether any pitch ever took *less* spin as the match progressed.
Given any kind of a decent total, Moen is going to be a problem for the home side. That's why I'm a layer at evens.
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution that was consistent with the way in which the vote had been won, and within that seek to ensure a version that was acceptable to the widest possible number. .
No, to you the premise is completely wrong. Given there is no way to define how much of what arguments swayed people with any degree of certainty, while it was probably a good idea to find a solution for instance which included strong immigration controls (not least because even lots of remainers find it a concern, and even the young barely have a positive opinion of immigration), it was absolutely the job of the government to find a solution acceptable to the largest number of people.
Leave fought on a prospectus. The public is entitled to see it put into operation on its main points.
Anything else is contemptuous of democracy. It's remarkable how elastic some Leavers' respect for the democratic process is when it gets to bits that don't suit them.
Given you have exhibited time and time again that you have no idea why people voted Leave and you yourself vehemently opposed it you are about as objective a commentator on this as the Pope is on the writings of Richard Dawkins.
We all know why Leavers voted for Brexit. THEY wanted FOREIGNERS OUT.
Isolationism -->turn our back on Europe --> regret it --> back in, much higher cost --> serried rows of white headstones --> to restore peace in Europe --> assured? --> risk worth taking? ---> rash to make that assumption...
What was he talking about then? Give me a rational explanation how I am not supposed to get the dark message that Brexit would lead to a repeat of the past....of its serried rows of white headstones across Europe. A series of bizarre gardening accidents maybe?
What he was talking about was the increased risk of instability in Europe leading to military intervention, as in the Balkans in the 90s. The most likely risk point is the Ukraine, or perhaps the Baltic states, or the possibility of populist nationalistic governments causing trouble in central Europe.
As Alastair says, this really isn't anything controversial. The only real criticism one could make of it is that the UK doesn't need to be part of the EU to play a full role, but he was making a wider point about isolationism.
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution that was consistent with the way in which the vote had been won, and within that seek to ensure a version that was acceptable to the widest possible number. .
No, to you the premise is completely wrong. Given there is no way to define how much of what arguments swayed people with any degree of certainty, while it was probably a good idea to find a solution for instance which included strong immigration controls (not least because even lots of remainers find it a concern, and even the young barely have a positive opinion of immigration), it was absolutely the job of the government to find a solution acceptable to the largest number of people.
Leave fought on a prospectus. The public is entitled to see it put into operation on its main points.
Anything else is contemptuous of democracy. It's remarkable how elastic some Leavers' respect for the democratic process is when it gets to bits that don't suit them.
No.
This was not two political parties seeking a mandate, this was a single question about whether we wanted to stay in the EU.
The government's job is to take us out of the EU, with the settlement acceptable to the greatest number of people.
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!
Well, yes. The job of the government was to find the solution that was acceptable to 70% of the electorate irrespective of where on the Leave/Remain scale they sat so long as it honoured the premise of leaving the EU.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
That premise is completely wrong. The job of the government was to find a solution that was consistent with the way in which the vote had been won, and within that seek to ensure a version that was acceptable to the widest possible number. .
No, to you the premise is completely wrong. Given there is no way to define how much of what arguments swayed people with any degree of certainty, while it was probably a good idea to find a solution for instance which included strong immigration controls (not least because even lots of remainers find it a concern, and even the young barely have a positive opinion of immigration), it was absolutely the job of the government to find a solution acceptable to the largest number of people.
Leave fought on a prospectus. The public is entitled to see it put into operation on its main points.
Anything else is contemptuous of democracy. It's remarkable how elastic some Leavers' respect for the democratic process is when it gets to bits that don't suit them.
Given you have exhibited time and time again that you have no idea why people voted Leave and you yourself vehemently opposed it you are about as objective a commentator on this as the Pope is on the writings of Richard Dawkins.
We all know why Leavers voted for Brexit. THEY wanted FOREIGNERS OUT.
Ah, another Remoaner who wants to blame foreigners.
This was not two political parties seeking a mandate, this was a single question about whether we wanted to stay in the EU.
The government's job is to take us out of the EU, with the settlement acceptable to the greatest number of people.
In a regular election, nobody would be surprised to find that a government's grandiose plans don't survive contact with reality. The EU referendum is no different.
Comments
I suppose thinking about it, it could be included in the A50 Withdrawal Agreement if we cough up the €50 billion and sort out Ireland etc. Perhaps the Eurocrats could have said that by default it wasn't happening but there might be a decision in 18 months time to allow it. What they can't do is allow the UK programme to proceed now.
Unfortunately, a combination of intransigence by the EU and incompetence by Theresa May has made that unlikely.
Wasn't this a very good - missed - opportunity for the EU to show that its vision of Europe, including European culture, continues to include the UK in some ways? The idea of European culture without Britain's contribution is a much diminished culture. It reflects far worse on the EU than it does on Britain.
Why can't we just declare our own European City of Culture? Let the bids be decided by the UK.
We'll still be part of Europe after we leave the EU.
McDonnell has had a 'stinker' since the budget as his plans come under scrutiny like never before
The reformulation you adopt is very popular among those Leavers who remained subterranean during the referendum campaign but who now seek to surf on the back of it to achieve a solution that would never have been adopted if it had been actively campaigned for.
Whilst that is a minority of Leave voters it is still a substantial number which, when added to Remain voters would, I would have thought, mean a clear majority of the electorate supporting the retention of freedom of movement in order to keep access to the Single Market.
Anything else is contemptuous of democracy. It's remarkable how elastic some Leavers' respect for the democratic process is when it gets to bits that don't suit them.
We thought he was exaggerating. Maybe he wasn't.
My point is I doubt voters will be voting on the back of how relevant productivity is to depressed wages. They’ll likely be voting on whether they feel better or worse off.
McDonnell has a stinker literally every time he has to explain his economic plans this is hardly a new thing. Labour did well in June in spite of McDonnell not because loads of voters thought he was the new Keynes.
The shocking result of the referendum was that it was even close.
We can all produce exceptions, there were some middle class Leave voters concerned about immigration too but it was the working class who won it for Leave and it was immigration which drove their vote. A majority of the middle class voted Remain.
This is what people were voting for:
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/brexit-david-cameron-predicts-world-war
Can believe that, the wind was very cold earlier.
I remember seeing this doing the rounds on social media and I thought that sounded a bit fishy. Gove could cause an argument in an empty lift and certainly politicians can say some dumb shit, but it just didn't pass the smell test.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-the-uks-strength-and-security-in-the-eu-9-may-2016
In other news, why on earth is anyone surprised that the medium-term prospects for the UK economy are now expected to be as predicted before the referendum?
Last matched at 3.5 - which is the lowest ever.
Now available at 3.55 but still favourite:
2017 - 65 (now legally impossible)
2018 - 3.7
2019 - 3.8
2020 - 10
2021 - 9.4
2022 - 3.55
BT's coverage was absolutely fine, but it was totally vanilla. Nothing wrong with it, but no real in depth analysis in the way we have come to expect from Gary Neville doing the footy etc. Also, no innovations in the way when CH4 first got the cricket they rethought the whole way the cricket should be covered.
I'd expect it to take 5-10 years to get back to or exceed previous rates. We have to complete Brexit first and strike new trade deals and deregulate/reregulate in other areas.
And, yes; I knew this and factored it in prior to the Vote.
Apart from Corbyn, who might scrub much of that for another decade, and seems to be a one-man ticking economic suicide bomb waiting to be detonated by a deluded electoral base.
"Isolationism has never served this country well. Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.
We have always had to go back in, and always at a much higher cost.
The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price that this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.
Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?
I would never be so rash as to make that assumption.
The interpretation put on his words was this:
"Cameron reminded voters that leaving the EU would allow for the possibility of tension between friendly neighbouring EU countries, as we have seen before in the previous two world wars and less major wars in-between, where Britain went head to head against France and Germany."
But I'm sure he had no intention of people reaching that conclusion, No sirree....
McDonnell being a bit of an angry man isn’t that much of surprise, he has a history of it especially with his comments towards Esther McVey. I remember Dead Ringers satirising him precisely because he buckled under pressure.
It's remarkable that Leave supporters think that they are in any way controversial. That was an early indicator of just how loopy they are.
I was satisfied with what I was delivering. I didn't deliver Turkey leaflets.
If you don't believe me I was given free crap about "your money being spent on bridges in Greece rather than potholes in the U.K.", which I refused to deliver.
Isolationism -->turn our back on Europe --> regret it --> back in, much higher cost --> serried rows of white headstones --> to restore peace in Europe --> assured? --> risk worth taking? ---> rash to make that assumption...
What was he talking about then? Give me a rational explanation how I am not supposed to get the dark message that Brexit would lead to a repeat of the past....of its serried rows of white headstones across Europe. A series of bizarre gardening accidents maybe?
Commons Committee Stage limited to 8 days.
- 3 days already gone
- 5 days remaining have all now been scheduled:
4, 6, 12, 13, 20 December
Of course a Corbyn government would guarantee that they would be wrong in the other direction, and hugely so. Unfortunately we can't rule that out.
Given any kind of a decent total, Moen is going to be a problem for the home side. That's why I'm a layer at evens.
As Alastair says, this really isn't anything controversial. The only real criticism one could make of it is that the UK doesn't need to be part of the EU to play a full role, but he was making a wider point about isolationism.
NEW THREAD
This was not two political parties seeking a mandate, this was a single question about whether we wanted to stay in the EU.
The government's job is to take us out of the EU, with the settlement acceptable to the greatest number of people.