What a complete cock-up the Tories have made of Brexit
When the definitive Book of Brexit comes to be written, one feature above all will stand out – the gulf between what Britain thought was likely to happen and the reality of what actually occurred.
At every stage, from the triggering of Article 50, through to the build-up to next month’s EU summit and (unless something remarkable happens) all the way to March 29, 2019, the British government has been shocked and surprised by the refusal of the 27 and their top team to compromise on their stated positions.
The conclusion has to be that the Government honestly believed that the two sides to the negotiation were partners, not opponents. They may even have calculated that in some bizarre fashion Britain had the upper hand. Theresa May and David Davis, backed by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, thought that a quick, no-fault divorce, followed by a frictionless trade deal, would be done and dusted within a year, leaving the UK – in the Prime Minister’s words – to enjoy a “deep and special partnership” with Europe.
Actually I think most people who voted for Brexit hoped the EU would be sensible and we'd come to mutually beneficial arrangements... But that was always hope over expectation and most people were actually ready from the start that we'd have to go to WTO rules with no deal - And the fact most people always expected the EU to be vindictive to point of being irrational is the very reason we chose Brexit in the first place.
With their behavior the EU has just confirmed what we already knew to be true.
How do you know what most people thought?
52% of those who voted had a poor enough opinion of the EU to want to walk away - with all that entails.
A sizeable chunk of the 48% still had severe misgivings about the EU, but clung to nurse for fear of something worse.
The EU do make it really, really easy to dislike them.
What a complete cock-up the Tories have made of Brexit
When the definitive Book of Brexit comes to be written, one feature above all will stand out – the gulf between what Britain thought was likely to happen and the reality of what actually occurred.
At every stage, from the triggering of Article 50, through to the build-up to next month’s EU summit and (unless something remarkable happens) all the way to March 29, 2019, the British government has been shocked and surprised by the refusal of the 27 and their top team to compromise on their stated positions.
The conclusion has to be that the Government honestly believed that the two sides to the negotiation were partners, not opponents. They may even have calculated that in some bizarre fashion Britain had the upper hand. Theresa May and David Davis, backed by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, thought that a quick, no-fault divorce, followed by a frictionless trade deal, would be done and dusted within a year, leaving the UK – in the Prime Minister’s words – to enjoy a “deep and special partnership” with Europe.
Actually I think most people who voted for Brexit hoped the EU would be sensible and we'd come to mutually beneficial arrangements... But that was always hope over expectation and most people were actually ready from the start that we'd have to go to WTO rules with no deal - And the fact most people always expected the EU to be vindictive to point of being irrational is the very reason we chose Brexit in the first place.
With their behavior the EU has just confirmed what we already knew to be true.
How do you know what most people thought?
52% of those who voted had a poor enough opinion of the EU to want to walk away - with all that entails.
A sizeable chunk of the 48% still had severe misgivings about the EU, but clung to nurse for fear of something worse.
The EU do make it really, really easy to dislike them.
52% thought that walking away from the EU would be a doddle, there would be more money for the NHS and the UK could have the best of both worlds. Cake and eat.
For me this reached its zenith when Jacqui Smith was asked five times in succession "How many illegal immigrants that you don't know about are there in the country?"
Wow. That is meta. What would they have done if she'd replied with "14."
52% of those who voted had a poor enough opinion of the EU to want to walk away - with all that entails.
A sizeable chunk of the 48% still had severe misgivings about the EU, but clung to nurse for fear of something worse.
The EU do make it really, really easy to dislike them.
All the EU is doing is seeking to minimise the impact of BREXIT on its members. Those members will need to agree to any deal, so it is duty bound to seek the least costs to its members. Dislike it or not, the EU negotiators are acting rationally (and to many of us quite reasonably)..anything less would lead to more uncertainty in the medium term when it is placed before the member states.
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
Tories are willing to take the difficult decisions to restrain public spending, in the interests of national solvency and the long-term greater good, that Labour are not.
That includes welfare reform, which is delivering results in terms of employment, and greater long-term prosperity with - no doubt - some very challenging personal stories involved.
But, their humanity is not in question.
You should try and control your emotions a bit more if you wish others to engage with your arguments more seriously.
As an example of this, Nick Palmer once said that one issue with the Tories is that far too few of them understand just how hard life is for the poorest in society, because so few of them come from that background.
I thought that was a fair comment, and that lesson has stayed with me.
Perhaps an argument for the council house raised, state educated son of a single mother David Davis to succeed May then rather than Old Etonians Boris or Rees Mogg or the former Charterhouse head boy Jeremy Hunt or the Cheltenham Ladies College old girl Amber Rudd?
Davis would make an interesting contrast to the prep school educated and Shropshire Manor House raised Jeremy Corbyn and that could get under the skin of a class warrior like Corbyn.
Mr. Nick, that wasn't my view at all. I thought we'd see far more economic turbulence than we've had to date. I was more ambivalent than expected precisely because of the economic implications, particularly in the short term.
52% of those who voted had a poor enough opinion of the EU to want to walk away - with all that entails.
Even the people who bought Boris's original argument that we should vote Leave in order to renegotiate membership terms?
If the EU had been smart, and come back to the table with an improved offer on Dave's deal, then it's possible they'd have won a second referendum six months later about 55-45.
I don't buy the "no way, lest we encourage others", line. Both Denmark, on Maastricht, and the Irish, on Lisbon, have been handled in this way before.
I suspect the real answer is that both the EU and UK had had enough of each other.
Mr. Nick, that wasn't my view at all. I thought we'd see far more economic turbulence than we've had to date. I was more ambivalent than expected precisely because of the economic implications, particularly in the short term.
I'm happy to accept it wasn't your personal view but the case sold to the electorate by the leave campaign was that there was no real downside to leaving , there would be no significant costs and everything would continue pretty much as it is apart from more money for the NHS and lower immigration. We now know that this is far from the reality.
All the EU is doing is seeking to minimise the impact of BREXIT on its members. Those members will need to agree to any deal, so it is duty bound to seek the least costs to its members. Dislike it or not, the EU negotiators are acting rationally (and to many of us quite reasonably)..anything less would lead to more uncertainty in the medium term when it is placed before the member states.
It was rational, bloody-minded but rational, when demanding money we didn't owe it.
It is deeply irrational to say we won't talk about trade until we know how the border deals with trade; that because we want a hard border we're willing to crash the trade talks to guarantee a hard border. That is irrational.
52% of those who voted had a poor enough opinion of the EU to want to walk away - with all that entails.
Even the people who bought Boris's original argument that we should vote Leave in order to renegotiate membership terms?
If the EU had been smart, and come back to the table with an improved offer on Dave's deal, then it's possible they'd have won a second referendum six months later about 55-45.
I don't buy the "no way, lest we encourage others", line. Both Denmark, on Maastricht, and the Irish, on Lisbon, have been handled in this way before.
I suspect the real answer is that both the EU and UK had had enough of each other.
Indeed.
The problem the Remainers miss in their forlorn hopes that this will all be cancelled and forgotten about is that the EU really don't care to have us as members anymore.
On topic: John McDonnell fully deserves to be humiliated by interviewers. We need more such humiliation, not less. Not only is he an extremely nasty piece of work, he is also proposing to wreck the British economy:
Note the chilling last paragraph. That is the language of populist despotism, stoking up discontent so that ogres can be blamed. Jews, and especially Jewish bankers,were the most fruitful source of ogres blamed by McDonnell's predecessors in Europe and the US in the last century. It's only a small change of terminology to blame 'banks and hedge funds' - the latter being especially handy, since hardly anyone knows what a hedge fund is. And blaming 'profiteers' isn't even a change at all - it's straight out of the 1930s.
I am not worried about Brexit.
But, I do have plans to diversify what assets I can away from the UK if McDonnell looks like getting in.
What a complete cock-up the Tories have made of Brexit
When the definitive Book of Brexit comes to be written, one feature above all will stand out – the gulf between what Britain thought was likely to happen and the reality of what actually occurred.
At every stage, from the triggering of Article 50, through to the build-up to next month’s EU summit and (unless something remarkable happens) all the way to March 29, 2019, the British government has been shocked and surprised by the refusal of the 27 and their top team to compromise on their stated positions.
The conclusion has to be that the Government honestly believed that the two sides to the negotiation were partners, not opponents. They may even have calculated that in some bizarre fashion Britain had the upper hand. Theresa May and David Davis, backed by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, thought that a quick, no-fault divorce, followed by a frictionless trade deal, would be done and dusted within a year, leaving the UK – in the Prime Minister’s words – to enjoy a “deep and special partnership” with Europe.
Actually I think most people who voted for Brexit hoped the EU would be sensible and we'd come to mutually beneficial arrangements... But that was always hope over expectation and most people were actually ready from the start that we'd have to go to WTO rules with no deal - And the fact most people always expected the EU to be vindictive to point of being irrational is the very reason we chose Brexit in the first place.
With their behavior the EU has just confirmed what we already knew to be true.
How do you know what most people thought?
52% of those who voted had a poor enough opinion of the EU to want to walk away - with all that entails.
A sizeable chunk of the 48% still had severe misgivings about the EU, but clung to nurse for fear of something worse.
The EU do make it really, really easy to dislike them.
52% thought that walking away from the EU would be a doddle, there would be more money for the NHS and the UK could have the best of both worlds. Cake and eat.
You think the EU not making it a dodde has endeared them more to the EU?
Well it's a view....
The EU had a shockingly bad brand in the UK. Which was why Remain found it harder to sell than a high-mileage Trabant.... If they even tried to sell us the benefits of the EU. The EU has behaved like one of those charities that badger you into joining them with a £5 a month standing order - and then get all outraged when you cancel because you've discovered they had quietly raised that standing order to £250 a month.
52% of those who voted had a poor enough opinion of the EU to want to walk away - with all that entails.
Even the people who bought Boris's original argument that we should vote Leave in order to renegotiate membership terms?
If the EU had been smart, and come back to the table with an improved offer on Dave's deal, then it's possible they'd have won a second referendum six months later about 55-45.
I don't buy the "no way, lest we encourage others", line. Both Denmark, on Maastricht, and the Irish, on Lisbon, have been handled in this way before.
I suspect the real answer is that both the EU and UK had had enough of each other.
Denmark voted against the Euro in a referendum and has never reversed that decision
Tories are willing to take the difficult decisions to restrain public spending, in the interests of national solvency and the long-term greater good, that Labour are not.
That includes welfare reform, which is delivering results in terms of employment, and greater long-term prosperity with - no doubt - some very challenging personal stories involved.
But, their humanity is not in question.
[Snipped}
As an example of this, Nick Palmer once said that one issue with the Tories is that far too few of them understand just how hard life is for the poorest in society, because so few of them come from that background.
I thought that was a fair comment, and that lesson has stayed with me.
And yet when someone who does come from that sort of background becomes a Tory they face some pretty unpleasant and vicious abuse as if they were being a sort of class traitor. See, for example, Shaun Bailey.
So I'd have more sympathy with @NickPalmer's point if it weren't people from his party making it so personally unpleasant for people with exactly that sort of background to be Tories.
Oh, I quite agree with you. The Left need to learn that not sharing their political opinions does not make them guilty of moral turpitude, and justify any level of abuse or "action".
Only one party leader doesnt do personal abuse.
No - others to do it for him. And then he claims the moral high ground while, frankly, turning a blind eye to what some of his supporters do.
There is only one party leader who leads a party which, astonishingly given its values and history, has with justification been accused of anti-semitism, which goes well beyond personal abuse into territory which no decent party and no decent party leader should countenance. He leads a party where some in it think it fine to unleash a campaign of "hate" against the spouse of the PM, where some of its supporters think it OK to hang effigies of Tories outside their conference and to shout abuse at those going to that conference. He turns a blind eye to the misogynistic abuse suffered by women in his party.
The weekend papers reported a study into the abuse suffered by MPs and by a factor of 2 to 1 it was Tories who suffered the most abuse and often from Labour supporters.
The fish rots from the head. If Labour has a problem with racist abuse and misogyny and some of its supporters thinking that hate is good, the tone comes from the top, as it does in any organisation. And it is not good enough - it really isn't - for Corbyn to say that, well, he doesn't shout abuse at people.
It's purpose was to get a 65/35 vote for Remain, tell Cash/Jenkins/Redwood/Hannan "sorry guys, it's over.", and put the issue to bed for a generation.
Ireland's second referendum on the Lisbon treaty was won 67/33 so we have something to aim for.
Which the EU had to offer reassurances to obtain, including incorporating legally binding guarantees on abortion, taxation and military neutrality for EIRE.
Where is the equivalent for the UK?
The EU has done the opposite, and taken Dave's deal off the table.
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
Tories are willing to take the difficult decisions to restrain public spending, in the interests of national solvency and the long-term greater good, that Labour are not.
That includes welfare reform, which is delivering results in terms of employment, and greater long-term prosperity with - no doubt - some very challenging personal stories involved.
But, their humanity is not in question.
You should try and control your emotions a bit more if you wish others to engage with your arguments more seriously.
As an example of this, Nick Palmer once said that one issue with the Tories is that far too few of them understand just how hard life is for the poorest in society, because so few of them come from that background.
I thought that was a fair comment, and that lesson has stayed with me.
Perhaps an argument for the council house raised, state educated son of a single mother David Davis to succeed May then rather than Old Etonians Boris or Rees Mogg or the former Charterhouse head boy Jeremy Hunt or the Cheltenham Ladies College old girl Amber Rudd?
Davis would make an interesting contrast to the prep school educated and Shropshire Manor House raised Jeremy Corbyn and that could get under the skin of a class warrior like Corbyn.
That's what he ran on in 2005. The trouble is, he isn't particularly insightful, or hard-working.
He does have a friendly demeanour, but that isn't really enough.
It's purpose was to get a 65/35 vote for Remain, tell Cash/Jenkins/Redwood/Hannan "sorry guys, it's over.", and put the issue to bed for a generation.
Ireland's second referendum on the Lisbon treaty was won 67/33 so we have something to aim for.
Which the EU had to offer reassurances to obtain, including incorporating legally binding guarantees on abortion, taxation and military neutrality for EIRE.
Where is the equivalent for the UK?
The EU has done the opposite, and taken Dave's deal off the table.
At what point do you think the EU should have made this new improved offer? When Leavers were saying "suck it up losers"? When the Prime Minister was denouncing citizens of nowhere? When the government handed in its article 50 letter confirming that it had decided to leave the EU?
The EU could and should do nothing until the British government had shown it had the slightest inclination to have a rethink. Since it doesn't, why on earth would the EU start making offers out of the blue like Des O'Connor on Take Your Pick?
What a complete cock-up the Tories have made of Brexit
When the definitive Book of Brexit comes to be written, one feature above all will stand out – the gulf between what Britain thought was likely to happen and the reality of what actually occurred.
At every stage, from the triggering of Article 50, through to the build-up to next month’s EU summit and (unless something remarkable happens) all the way to March 29, 2019, the British government has been shocked and surprised by the refusal of the 27 and their top team to compromise on their stated positions.
The conclusion has to be that the Government honestly believed that the two sides to the negotiation were partners, not opponents. They may even have calculated that in some bizarre fashion Britain had the upper hand. Theresa May and David Davis, backed by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, thought that a quick, no-fault divorce, followed by a frictionless trade deal, would be done and dusted within a year, leaving the UK – in the Prime Minister’s words – to enjoy a “deep and special partnership” with Europe.
Actually I think most people who voted for Brexit hoped the EU would be sensible and we'd come to mutually beneficial arrangements... But that was always hope over expectation and most people were actually ready from the start that we'd have to go to WTO rules with no deal - And the fact most people always expected the EU to be vindictive to point of being irrational is the very reason we chose Brexit in the first place.
With their behavior the EU has just confirmed what we already knew to be true.
How do you know what most people thought?
52% of those who voted had a poor enough opinion of the EU to want to walk away - with all that entails.
A sizeable chunk of the 48% still had severe misgivings about the EU, but clung to nurse for fear of something worse.
The EU do make it really, really easy to dislike them.
52% thought that walking away from the EU would be a doddle, there would be more money for the NHS and the UK could have the best of both worlds. Cake and eat.
You think the EU not making it a dodde has endeared them more to the EU?
Well it's a view....
Which the yougov series suggests is gaining ground as a majority now think the decision to leave was a bad one.
It's purpose was to get a 65/35 vote for Remain, tell Cash/Jenkins/Redwood/Hannan "sorry guys, it's over.", and put the issue to bed for a generation.
Ireland's second referendum on the Lisbon treaty was won 67/33 so we have something to aim for.
Which the EU had to offer reassurances to obtain, including incorporating legally binding guarantees on abortion, taxation and military neutrality for EIRE.
Where is the equivalent for the UK?
The EU has done the opposite, and taken Dave's deal off the table.
Those were reassurances that they wouldn't do things that the winning side in the referendum had falsely said they'd do. I guess the equivalent would be to offer the British a veto on Turkish accession.
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
Tories are willing to take the difficult decisions to restrain public spending, in the interests of national solvency and the long-term greater good, that Labour are not.
That includes welfare reform, which is delivering results in terms of employment, and greater long-term prosperity with - no doubt - some very challenging personal stories involved.
But, their humanity is not in question.
You should try and control your emotions a bit more if you wish others to engage with your arguments more seriously.
As an example of this, Nick Palmer once said that one issue with the Tories is that far too few of them understand just how hard life is for the poorest in society, because so few of them come from that background.
I thought that was a fair comment, and that lesson has stayed with me.
Perhaps an argument for the council house raised, state educated son of a single mother David Davis to succeed May then rather than Old Etonians Boris or Rees Mogg or the former Charterhouse head boy Jeremy Hunt or the Cheltenham Ladies College old girl Amber Rudd?
Davis would make an interesting contrast to the prep school educated and Shropshire Manor House raised Jeremy Corbyn and that could get under the skin of a class warrior like Corbyn.
That's what he ran on in 2005. The trouble is, he isn't particularly insightful, or hard-working.
He does have a friendly demeanour, but that isn't really enough.
He did as well as Boris in the Survation summer poll of potential Tory leaders v Corbyn and better than Hammond or Rudd.
He also tied for first with JRM in the Frank Luntz focus group of Tory swing voters last month, ahead of Boris, Rudd and Hammond.
What a complete cock-up the Tories have made of Brexit
When the definitive Book of Brexit comes to be written, one feature above all will stand out – the gulf between what Britain thought was likely to happen and the reality of what actually occurred.
At every stage, from the triggering of Article 50, through to the build-up to next month’s EU summit and (unless something remarkable happens) all the way to March 29, 2019, the British government has been shocked and surprised by the refusal of the 27 and their top team to compromise on their stated positions.
The conclusion has to be that the Government honestly believed that the two sides to the negotiation were partners, not opponents. They may even have calculated that in some bizarre fashion Britain had the upper hand. Theresa May and David Davis, backed by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, thought that a quick, no-fault divorce, followed by a frictionless trade deal, would be done and dusted within a year, leaving the UK – in the Prime Minister’s words – to enjoy a “deep and special partnership” with Europe.
Actually I think most people who voted for Brexit hoped the EU would be sensible and we'd come to mutually beneficial arrangements... But that was always hope over expectation and most people were actually ready from the start that we'd have to go to WTO rules with no deal - And the fact most people always expected the EU to be vindictive to point of being irrational is the very reason we chose Brexit in the first place.
With their behavior the EU has just confirmed what we already knew to be true.
How do you know what most people thought?
52% of those who voted had a poor enough opinion of the EU to want to walk away - with all that entails.
A sizeable chunk of the 48% still had severe misgivings about the EU, but clung to nurse for fear of something worse.
The EU do make it really, really easy to dislike them.
52% thought that walking away from the EU would be a doddle, there would be more money for the NHS and the UK could have the best of both worlds. Cake and eat.
You think the EU not making it a dodde has endeared them more to the EU?
Well it's a view....
Which the yougov series suggests is gaining ground as a majority now think the decision to leave was a bad one.
Given the polls showing a correlation between authoritarianism and support for Brexit, perhaps we should expect people to respect a strong line from the EU, and be contemptuous of UK weakness.
When you have popular (and high-profile) mainstream writers tweeting "voting Labour is basically about not being a c*nt", then you tacitly endorse all of this behaviour, by implying everyone else is a c*nt, and therefore fair game.
It's purpose was to get a 65/35 vote for Remain, tell Cash/Jenkins/Redwood/Hannan "sorry guys, it's over.", and put the issue to bed for a generation.
Ireland's second referendum on the Lisbon treaty was won 67/33 so we have something to aim for.
Which the EU had to offer reassurances to obtain, including incorporating legally binding guarantees on abortion, taxation and military neutrality for EIRE.
Where is the equivalent for the UK?
The EU has done the opposite, and taken Dave's deal off the table.
Those were reassurances that they wouldn't do things that the winning side in the referendum had falsely said they'd do. I guess the equivalent would be to offer the British a veto on Turkish accession.
If they threw in protection for the British curry that could work...
It's purpose was to get a 65/35 vote for Remain, tell Cash/Jenkins/Redwood/Hannan "sorry guys, it's over.", and put the issue to bed for a generation.
Ireland's second referendum on the Lisbon treaty was won 67/33 so we have something to aim for.
Which the EU had to offer reassurances to obtain, including incorporating legally binding guarantees on abortion, taxation and military neutrality for EIRE.
Where is the equivalent for the UK?
The EU has done the opposite, and taken Dave's deal off the table.
Those were reassurances that they wouldn't do things that the winning side in the referendum had falsely said they'd do. I guess the equivalent would be to offer the British a veto on Turkish accession.
Not true. Denmark was offered four opt-outs after its Maastricht rejection, on security and defence, citizenship, police and justice, and the adoption of the euro. The Irish referendum secured real concessions, for example, it was followed by an EU leaders summit where they agreed to keep 1 Commissioner per member state:
"The Treaty of Lisbon stated that the size of the Commission will reduce from one per member state to one for two thirds of member states from 2014, with an equal rotation over time. This would have ended the arrangement which has existed since 1957 of having at least one Commissioner for each Member State at all times. However, the Treaty also provided[46] that the European Council could unanimously decide to alter this number. Following the first Irish referendum on Lisbon, the European Council decided in December 2008 to revert to one Commissioner per member state with effect from the date of entry into force of the Treaty"
But, you might be right. If the EU had offered that veto, plus a stronger emergency brake on migration numbers and kept Dave's deal on the table, it might have been enough.
Given the polls showing a correlation between authoritarianism and support for Brexit, perhaps we should expect people to respect a strong line from the EU, and be contemptuous of UK weakness.
If you buy a car that turns out to be a dud the normal reaction is to change your view of that brand of car and buy a different brand in future. The leave campaign sold the voters a dud car - it cannot do any of the things they said it could do. The normal reaction to this would be to look more seriously at other cars that were previously rejected, not to become more enthusiastic about the dud.
It's purpose was to get a 65/35 vote for Remain, tell Cash/Jenkins/Redwood/Hannan "sorry guys, it's over.", and put the issue to bed for a generation.
Ireland's second referendum on the Lisbon treaty was won 67/33 so we have something to aim for.
Which the EU had to offer reassurances to obtain, including incorporating legally binding guarantees on abortion, taxation and military neutrality for EIRE.
Where is the equivalent for the UK?
The EU has done the opposite, and taken Dave's deal off the table.
Those were reassurances that they wouldn't do things that the winning side in the referendum had falsely said they'd do. I guess the equivalent would be to offer the British a veto on Turkish accession.
If they threw in protection for the British curry that could work...
And, you and EiT wonder why so many of the British hold the EU in contempt.
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
Tories are willing to take the difficult decisions to restrain public spending, in the interests of national solvency and the long-term greater good, that Labour are not.
That includes welfare reform, which is delivering results in terms of employment, and greater long-term prosperity with - no doubt - some very challenging personal stories involved.
But, their humanity is not in question.
You should try and control your emotions a bit more if you wish others to engage with your arguments more seriously.
As an example of this, Nick Palmer once said that one issue with the Tories is that far too few of them understand just how hard life is for the poorest in society, because so few of them come from that background.
I thought that was a fair comment, and that lesson has stayed with me.
Perhaps an argument for the council house raised, state educated son of a single mother David Davis to succeed May then rather than Old Etonians Boris or Rees Mogg or the former Charterhouse head boy Jeremy Hunt or the Cheltenham Ladies College old girl Amber Rudd?
Davis would make an interesting contrast to the prep school educated and Shropshire Manor House raised Jeremy Corbyn and that could get under the skin of a class warrior like Corbyn.
That's what he ran on in 2005. The trouble is, he isn't particularly insightful, or hard-working.
He does have a friendly demeanour, but that isn't really enough.
He did as well as Boris in the Survation summer poll of potential Tory leaders v Corbyn and better than Hammond or Rudd.
He also tied for first with JRM in the Frank Luntz focus group of Tory swing voters last month, ahead of Boris, Rudd and Hammond.
It is said that the French revolution took place not because peasants were starving but because lawyers were starving. Similarly, those looking for the causes of Brexit spend far too long looking at the left-behind working class (who have been there for generations, making no decisive influence in elections in my adult life) and nowhere near enough looking at the relatively affluent who decided that they didn't have much to lose by going for it.
Where did that quote come from? Not heard it before, althjoiugh I’m no historian.
A lawyers joke. I've heard it used with other professions and probably other revolutions!
It's when the army's starving that you need to worry.
I thought we heard yesterday that we don't have an army or indeed navy anymore, just a load of cyber defence operatives.
Q: 007. I'm your new Quartermaster. James Bond: You must be joking. Q: Why, because I'm not wearing a lab coat? James Bond: Because you still have spots. Q: My complexion is hardly relevant. James Bond: Your competence is. Q: Age is no guarantee of efficiency. James Bond: And youth is no guarantee of innovation. Q: Well, I'll hazard I can do more damage on my laptop sitting in my pajamas before my first cup of Earl Grey than you can do in a year in the field. James Bond: Oh, so why do you need me? Q: Every now and then a trigger has to be pulled.
On topic: John McDonnell fully deserves to be humiliated by interviewers. We need more such humiliation, not less. Not only is he an extremely nasty piece of work, he is also proposing to wreck the British economy:
Note the chilling last paragraph. That is the language of populist despotism, stoking up discontent so that ogres can be blamed. Jews, and especially Jewish bankers,were the most fruitful source of ogres blamed by McDonnell's predecessors in Europe and the US in the last century. It's only a small change of terminology to blame 'banks and hedge funds' - the latter being especially handy, since hardly anyone knows what a hedge fund is. And blaming 'profiteers' isn't even a change at all - it's straight out of the 1930s.
I am not worried about Brexit.
But, I do have plans to diversify what assets I can away from the UK if McDonnell looks like getting in.
Unlike John Redwood who advised his investment clients to get the hell out of the UK because of the Brexit risk. Well done you! I mean that genuinely. You are serious about leaving the European Union, unlike the shower that's our political class.
It's purpose was to get a 65/35 vote for Remain, tell Cash/Jenkins/Redwood/Hannan "sorry guys, it's over.", and put the issue to bed for a generation.
Ireland's second referendum on the Lisbon treaty was won 67/33 so we have something to aim for.
Which the EU had to offer reassurances to obtain, including incorporating legally binding guarantees on abortion, taxation and military neutrality for EIRE.
Where is the equivalent for the UK?
The EU has done the opposite, and taken Dave's deal off the table.
At what point do you think the EU should have made this new improved offer? When Leavers were saying "suck it up losers"? When the Prime Minister was denouncing citizens of nowhere? When the government handed in its article 50 letter confirming that it had decided to leave the EU?
The EU could and should do nothing until the British government had shown it had the slightest inclination to have a rethink. Since it doesn't, why on earth would the EU start making offers out of the blue like Des O'Connor on Take Your Pick?
Well, the EU leaders removed the offer from the table the very next day, on 24th June 2016, whilst Cameron/Osborne were still in office stating, "there will be no renegotiation".
A request to the government: I've long ago given up on any idea of integrity or intelligence in the handling of Brexit, but can you please try at least keeping your lies consistent?
When you have popular (and high-profile) mainstream writers tweeting "voting Labour is basically about not being a c*nt", then you tacitly endorse all of this behaviour, by implying everyone else is a c*nt, and therefore fair game.
I've taken heed of the comments below.
So to try and explain how things have become so shouty in politics. One side keep claiming anyone in Labour is a communist - Red Ed would destroy investment by regulating energy and building houses, yet when the Tories do the same thing they say its sensible.
And then on my side we do have a collected bee in our bonnet about basic immorality of some Tory policies. If I have crossed the line with the good people on PB I apologise. I do know that many Tory ministers and supporters are highly intelligent educated people. So when all of the evidence of the brutalising effect AND economic incompetence of various Tory policies gets ignored and dismissed by said intelligent people, the conclusion drawn is that you don't care.
If you think the key economic focus still has to be on cuts then fine - thats an argument. But you are also people, there has to be another way to do it than to leave cancer patients dying in abject poverty. There are always a huge number of options available and money available on trees when required by you, but when it comes to not leaving the poorest destitute AND creating a major crisis with local authorities AND leaving landlords with huge arrears the message is always pivoted back to something Labour did in the past.
So come on Tories. Its only your policies and attitudes of the Cameron/May era that have been c*nty. Why not reconnect with your values and basic decency and change. Before uncaring c*unts becomes all that the millennial generation think of you
On topic: John McDonnell fully deserves to be humiliated by interviewers. We need more such humiliation, not less. Not only is he an extremely nasty piece of work, he is also proposing to wreck the British economy:
Note the chilling last paragraph. That is the language of populist despotism, stoking up discontent so that ogres can be blamed. Jews, and especially Jewish bankers,were the most fruitful source of ogres blamed by McDonnell's predecessors in Europe and the US in the last century. It's only a small change of terminology to blame 'banks and hedge funds' - the latter being especially handy, since hardly anyone knows what a hedge fund is. And blaming 'profiteers' isn't even a change at all - it's straight out of the 1930s.
I am not worried about Brexit.
But, I do have plans to diversify what assets I can away from the UK if McDonnell looks like getting in.
Unlike John Redwood who advised his investment clients to get the hell out of the UK because of the Brexit risk. Well done you! I mean that genuinely. You are serious about leaving the European Union, unlike the shower that's our political class.
Thank you.
I must confess I am also disappointed in a few of our political class.
It's purpose was to get a 65/35 vote for Remain, tell Cash/Jenkins/Redwood/Hannan "sorry guys, it's over.", and put the issue to bed for a generation.
Ireland's second referendum on the Lisbon treaty was won 67/33 so we have something to aim for.
Which the EU had to offer reassurances to obtain, including incorporating legally binding guarantees on abortion, taxation and military neutrality for EIRE.
Where is the equivalent for the UK?
The EU has done the opposite, and taken Dave's deal off the table.
At what point do you think the EU should have made this new improved offer? When Leavers were saying "suck it up losers"? When the Prime Minister was denouncing citizens of nowhere? When the government handed in its article 50 letter confirming that it had decided to leave the EU?
The EU could and should do nothing until the British government had shown it had the slightest inclination to have a rethink. Since it doesn't, why on earth would the EU start making offers out of the blue like Des O'Connor on Take Your Pick?
Well, the EU leaders removed the offer from the table the very next day, on 24th June 2016, whilst Cameron/Osborne were still in office stating, "there will be no renegotiation".
[Sir Keir Starmer] says he is worried to hear that the [Brexit sectoral impact] information fills just two lever arch files. He says that, in his old job as DPP, that is the amount of paperwork you would expect for a standard crown court case.
That, ladies and gentlemen, tells you nothing about Brexit, but it does sum up in two pithy sentences exactly what is wrong with our justice system.
[Sir Keir Starmer] says he is worried to hear that the [Brexit sectoral impact] information fills just two lever arch files. He says that, in his old job as DPP, that is the amount of paperwork you would expect for a standard crown court case.
That, ladies and gentlemen, tells you nothing about Brexit, but it does sum up in two pithy sentences exactly what is wrong with our justice system.
Given Starmer changes his mind about the single market and free movement every 5 minutes anyway all the reports in the world would not change the absurdity of Labour's position
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
Tories are willing to take the difficult decisions to restrain public spending, in the interests of national solvency and the long-term greater good, that Labour are not.
That includes welfare reform, which is delivering results in terms of employment, and greater long-term prosperity with - no doubt - some very challenging personal sson has stayed with me.
Perhaps an argument for the council house raised, state educated son of a single mother David Davis to succeed May then rather than Old Etonians Boris or Rees Mogg or the former Charterhouse head boy Jeremy Hunt or the Cheltenham Ladies College old girl Amber Rudd?
Davis would make an interesting contrast to the prep school educated and Shropshire Manor House raised Jeremy Corbyn and that could get under the skin of a class warrior like Corbyn.
That's what he ran on in 2005. The trouble is, he isn't particularly insightful, or hard-working.
He does have a friendly demeanour, but that isn't really enough.
He did as well as Boris in the Survation summer poll of potential Tory leaders v Corbyn and better than Hammond or Rudd.
He also tied for first with JRM in the Frank Luntz focus group of Tory swing voters last month, ahead of Boris, Rudd and Hammond.
That's not particularly compelling evidence.
It is effectively 2 polls, that is compelling evidence enough
Despite the Taoiseach being this week's object of the Brexiters' Two Minutes Hate, this is good news for the Leave negotiations. The Republic of Ireland government won't need to play to the gallery as much and they will be less distracted by domestic affairs.
Now the UK government just needs to come up with something even vestigially coherent as an approach to the Irish border.
Looks to me as if Mr Rees-Mogg is more interested in the job of Speaker than that of leader of the Conservative party. Smart move: the security of tenure looks much better.
It's purpose was to get a 65/35 vote for Remain, tell Cash/Jenkins/Redwood/Hannan "sorry guys, it's over.", and put the issue to bed for a generation.
Ireland's second referendum on the Lisbon treaty was won 67/33 so we have something to aim for.
Which the EU had to offer reassurances to obtain, including incorporating legally binding guarantees on abortion, taxation and military neutrality for EIRE.
Where is the equivalent for the UK?
The EU has done the opposite, and taken Dave's deal off the table.
Those were reassurances that they wouldn't do things that the winning side in the referendum had falsely said they'd do. I guess the equivalent would be to offer the British a veto on Turkish accession.
If they threw in protection for the British curry that could work...
Well the European Commission effectively banned Bombay Duck back in the 90's because it decided in its infinite wisdom to ban fish imports from India unless from approved canning factories, if I recall correctly. As it was all air dried and there were no approved factories that was that.
Not that it affected many in continental Europe of course, let alone the canteen at the Berlaymont one suspects.
Looks to me as if Mr Rees-Mogg is more interested in the job of Speaker than that of leader of the Conservative party. Smart move: the security of tenure looks much better.
He's making the canniest moves of any of the people associated with hard Brexit to distance himself from the train wreck.
There is a very strong argument that scientists are massively under-represented in politics and in political decision making.
Our greatest ever PM read Chemistry at university, so huzzah for more scientists in politics
Attlee didn't read chemistry at Oxford! IIRC he was a Lawyer!;)
Attlee was evil or incompetent, or both, he has the blood of two million Indians and Pakistanis on his hands.
How do you work that out, Mr Eagles? I thought it was the Indians and the Pakistanis who killed one another.
No one knows exactly how many were beaten, mutilated, tortured or raped in communal violence between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. The death toll has been estimated at 200,000 to two million. Between 10 million and 20 million people were displaced.
Who was to blame? Many in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh (which was East Pakistan until 1971) and Britain have asked that question. There are plenty of candidates. Among the principal players, almost everyone in this story made a decision or misjudgment that contributed to the eventual disaster.
Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy, was told by the British prime minister, Clement Attlee, in March 1947 to negotiate an exit deal with Indian leaders by October; if he could not, Britain would leave India with no deal by June 1948. The decision to speed this up and leave on Aug. 15 was Lord Mountbatten’s. The decision to grant this power to Lord Mountbatten, a naval officer nicknamed the “master of disaster” in the admiralty for his propensity to damage warships by precipitate action, was Mr. Attlee’s.
They should be able to come up with an Option A and an Option B. Option A has been identified. Option B has not.
Not really. The devil is in the detail.
This strikes me as a good test of objectivity in Remain-supporting commentators. By any objective standard, irrespective of whether you think Brexit is great or a looming disaster, the Irish/EU position makes zero sense. It should hardly be a matter for disagreement that arrangements for the Irish border will necessarily depend on what regulations and tariffs they are trying to police at the border.
It's purpose was to get a 65/35 vote for Remain, tell Cash/Jenkins/Redwood/Hannan "sorry guys, it's over.", and put the issue to bed for a generation.
Ireland's second referendum on the Lisbon treaty was won 67/33 so we have something to aim for.
Which the EU had to offer reassurances to obtain, including incorporating legally binding guarantees on abortion, taxation and military neutrality for EIRE.
Where is the equivalent for the UK?
The EU has done the opposite, and taken Dave's deal off the table.
At what point do you think the EU should have made this new improved offer? When Leavers were saying "suck it up losers"? When the Prime Minister was denouncing citizens of nowhere? When the government handed in its article 50 letter confirming that it had decided to leave the EU?
The EU could and should do nothing until the British government had shown it had the slightest inclination to have a rethink. Since it doesn't, why on earth would the EU start making offers out of the blue like Des O'Connor on Take Your Pick?
Well, the EU leaders removed the offer from the table the very next day, on 24th June 2016, whilst Cameron/Osborne were still in office stating, "there will be no renegotiation".
They then offered very little other than sorrow to David Cameron when he went over there a few days later on 28th/29th June.
If they had done anything else, you'd have been foaming at the mouth for their lack of respect for democracy.
I did not expect the referendum result. And I did expect - if the vote were for "Out - for both the EU and the UK government to take a deep breath, pause and think whether or not there was a way back. And I would have expected that to involve a second vote.
I expected that because, to be honest, that had been the MO before in other votes and because I thought that both sides would be sufficiently shocked by such a result and its possible consequences to see whether the differences could be bridged.
I was wrong about that. But I still think a pity that something like this did not happen.
It should hardly be a matter for disagreement that arrangements for the Irish border will necessarily depend on what regulations and tariffs they are trying to police at the border.
If your position is that it is unacceptable to do anything that would require any such arrangements, it is a logical starting point to anchor negotiations on trade around that fact rather than treating it as an afterthought. If the only way the UK can do that is to countenance a border in the Irish sea, then that is entirely a matter for the UK.
When you have popular (and high-profile) mainstream writers tweeting "voting Labour is basically about not being a c*nt", then you tacitly endorse all of this behaviour, by implying everyone else is a c*nt, and therefore fair game.
I've taken heed of the comments below.
So to try and explain how things have become so shouty in politics. One side keep claiming anyone in Labour is a communist - Red Ed would destroy investment by regulating energy and building houses, yet when the Tories do the same thing they say its sensible.
And then on my side we do have a collected bee in our bonnet about basic immorality of some Tory policies. If I have crossed the line with the good people on PB I apologise. I do know that many Tory ministers and supporters are highly intelligent educated people. So when all of the evidence of the brutalising effect AND economic incompetence of various Tory policies gets ignored and dismissed by said intelligent people, the conclusion drawn is that you don't care.
If you think the key economic focus still has to be on cuts then fine - thats an argument. But you are also people, there has to be another way to do it than to leave cancer patients dying in abject poverty. There are always a huge number of options available and money available on trees when required by you, but when it comes to not leaving the poorest destitute AND creating a major crisis with local authorities AND leaving landlords with huge arrears the message is always pivoted back to something Labour did in the past.
So come on Tories. Its only your policies and attitudes of the Cameron/May era that have been c*nty. Why not reconnect with your values and basic decency and change. Before uncaring c*unts becomes all that the millennial generation think of you
@PeterMannionMP: Very sticky wicket for DExEU junior minister Robin Walker, given a hospital pass by David Davis, whose fantastical balls re what were non-existent reports, got us all here. #BrexitReports #Brexit
Despite the Taoiseach being this week's object of the Brexiters' Two Minutes Hate, this is good news for the Leave negotiations. The Republic of Ireland government won't need to play to the gallery as much and they will be less distracted by domestic affairs.
Now the UK government just needs to come up with something even vestigially coherent as an approach to the Irish border.
Serious question: How do the Andorras, Liechtensteins, San Marinos of this world work, and other such constitutional oddities, vis a vis the Single Market? Anyone know?
Doesn't Liechtenstein actually have control of freedom of movement (via a tiny quota per annum?) for instance even though it's in the EEA? Now it's only a pinprick on the map with a nice castle, and a world leading position in the false teeth market (no, really), but it's funny how the EU can get "creative" when it wants to.
We all need a bit of a Nelsonian blind eye both ways round when it comes to NI
If your position is that it is unacceptable to do anything that would require any such arrangements, it is a logical starting point to anchor negotiations on trade around that fact rather than treating it as an afterthought. If the only way the UK can do that is to countenance a border in the Irish sea, then that is entirely a matter for the UK.
Even if that is true, it should all be part of the full negotiation on the future relationship between the UK and the EU. You simply cannot separate the Irish border from everything else. To make the EU's position even more absurd, if there is any hard border, it will on the Irish side. The UK is perfectly happy for there to be a completely free flow of goods and agricultural products across the border.
There is a very strong argument that scientists are massively under-represented in politics and in political decision making.
Our greatest ever PM read Chemistry at university, so huzzah for more scientists in politics
Attlee didn't read chemistry at Oxford! IIRC he was a Lawyer!;)
Attlee was evil or incompetent, or both, he has the blood of two million Indians and Pakistanis on his hands.
Hmm, perhaps SuperMac would have been a less controversial choice.
SuperMac was John Major with added panache.
What we wouldn't give for a PM who was John Major with added panache? As someone inclined towards the centre left, I like McMillan. In many ways he was arguable a PM to the left of Blair!
They should be able to come up with an Option A and an Option B. Option A has been identified. Option B has not.
Not really. The devil is in the detail.
This strikes me as a good test of objectivity in Remain-supporting commentators. By any objective standard, irrespective of whether you think Brexit is great or a looming disaster, the Irish/EU position makes zero sense.
I don't see how you conclude that. Brexit is a huge problem for the Irish, not of their making. The British preferred approach is no border, but they don't have a Scooby how to get there given the insistence on dropping freedom of movement and given the EU's position about what that means for the single market.
So the Irish, at a time which they believe maximises their negotiating clout, are insisting that before Britain starts to get into the discussions it wants to get into about trade, it must clarify how it sees the border working in practice with minimal impact. The Irish do not want to see a hard border across the island legitimised by the EU. It is recognised in the Good Friday Agreement that the Irish have a legitimate interest in the affairs of northern Ireland. They would much prefer to see northern Ireland given special treatment. The northern Irish themselves seem to think the same, on balance, so far as the limited polling evidence shows.
It is questionable from an Irish perspective whether it is worse to have the economic hit of a disorderly Brexit with an unlegitimised hard border or the lesser but still substantial economic hit of an orderly hard Brexit with a legitimised hard border. But you can't say the position makes zero sense. The contempt which the British have shown for the Irish on the question of the border and the whole question of the status of northern Ireland has been extremely ill-advised.
It's purpose was to get a 65/35 vote for Remain, tell Cash/Jenkins/Redwood/Hannan "sorry guys, it's over.", and put the issue to bed for a generation.
Ireland's second referendum on the Lisbon treaty was won 67/33 so we have something to aim for.
Which the EU had to offer reassurances to obtain, including incorporating legally binding guarantees on abortion, taxation and military neutrality for EIRE.
Where is the equivalent for the UK?
The EU has done the opposite, and taken Dave's deal off the table.
At what point do you think the EU should have made this new improved offer? When Leavers were saying "suck it up losers"? When the Prime Minister was denouncing citizens of nowhere? When the government handed in its article 50 letter confirming that it had decided to leave the EU?
The EU could and should do nothing until the British government had shown it had the slightest inclination to have a rethink. Since it doesn't, why on earth would the EU start making offers out of the blue like Des O'Connor on Take Your Pick?
Well, the EU leaders removed the offer from the table the very next day, on 24th June 2016, whilst Cameron/Osborne were still in office stating, "there will be no renegotiation".
I don't see how you conclude that. Brexit is a huge problem for the Irish, not of their making. The British preferred approach is no border, but they don't have a Scooby how to get there given the insistence on dropping freedom of movement and given the EU's position about what that means for the single market.
So the Irish, at a time which they believe maximises their negotiating clout, are insisting that before Britain starts to get into the discussions it wants to get into about trade, it must clarify how it sees the border working in practice with minimal impact. The Irish do not want to see a hard border across the island legitimised by the EU. It is recognised in the Good Friday Agreement that the Irish have a legitimate interest in the affairs of northern Ireland. They would much prefer to see northern Ireland given special treatment. The northern Irish themselves seem to think the same, on balance, so far as the limited polling evidence shows.
It is questionable from an Irish perspective whether it is worse to have the economic hit of a disorderly Brexit with an unlegitimised hard border or the lesser but still substantial economic hit of an orderly hard Brexit with a legitimised hard border. But you can't say the position makes zero sense. The contempt which the British have shown for the Irish on the question of the border and the whole question of the status of northern Ireland has been extremely ill-advised.
To repeat what I've already said in a different way, yes, of course Brexit is a huge problem for the Irish, and not of their making, but it will be a hugely less serious problem for them if the EU and UK get on with agreeing a comprehensive trade deal, as the UK have been proposing for the past year or more. So you'd have thought they'd be pushing for that, not obstructing it (and that was, indeed, the position until this newbie became Taoiseach).
When you have popular (and high-profile) mainstream writers tweeting "voting Labour is basically about not being a c*nt", then you tacitly endorse all of this behaviour, by implying everyone else is a c*nt, and therefore fair game.
I've taken heed of the comments below.
So to try and explain how things have become so shouty in politics. One side keep claiming anyone in Labour is a communist - Red Ed would destroy investment by regulating energy and building houses, yet when the Tories do the same thing they say its sensible.
And then on my side we do have a collected bee in our bonnet about basic immorality of some Tory policies. If I have crossed the line with the good people on PB I apologise. I do know that many Tory ministers and supporters are highly intelligent educated people. So when all of the evidence of the brutalising effect AND economic incompetence of various Tory policies gets ignored and dismissed by said intelligent people, the conclusion drawn is that you don't care.
If you think the key economic focus still has to be on cuts then fine - thats an argument. But you are also people, there has to be another way to do it than to leave cancer patients dying in abject poverty. There are always a huge number of options available and money available on trees when required by you, but when it comes to not leaving the poorest destitute AND creating a major crisis with local authorities AND leaving landlords with huge arrears the message is always pivoted back to something Labour did in the past.
So come on Tories. Its only your policies and attitudes of the Cameron/May era that have been c*nty. Why not reconnect with your values and basic decency and change. Before uncaring c*unts becomes all that the millennial generation think of you
Thank you for taking heed and for the apology. That's very welcome.
I still don't see how you'd find the money for all you'd like to do, and ascribing it to a difference in values doesn't really cut it.
One of the flaws that drove me to "out" was precisely the EU's habit of having more votes until we all got it "right".
In any decently ordered world, once various countries had voted "no" to the Constitution they should've come back with something far more watered down and genuinely noted the populaces' rejection of the scale and breadth of what had been offered. They didn't. They changed the title of the document and sailed on regardless and so doubled down on the deed.
The EU has only itself to blame if its repeated failure to actually take note of the people fed in to the Brexit vote and helped push it over the line.
There is a very strong argument that scientists are massively under-represented in politics and in political decision making.
Our greatest ever PM read Chemistry at university, so huzzah for more scientists in politics
Attlee didn't read chemistry at Oxford! IIRC he was a Lawyer!;)
Attlee was evil or incompetent, or both, he has the blood of two million Indians and Pakistanis on his hands.
How do you work that out, Mr Eagles? I thought it was the Indians and the Pakistanis who killed one another.
No one knows exactly how many were beaten, mutilated, tortured or raped in communal violence between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. The death toll has been estimated at 200,000 to two million. Between 10 million and 20 million people were displaced.
Who was to blame? Many in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh (which was East Pakistan until 1971) and Britain have asked that question. There are plenty of candidates. Among the principal players, almost everyone in this story made a decision or misjudgment that contributed to the eventual disaster.
Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy, was told by the British prime minister, Clement Attlee, in March 1947 to negotiate an exit deal with Indian leaders by October; if he could not, Britain would leave India with no deal by June 1948. The decision to speed this up and leave on Aug. 15 was Lord Mountbatten’s. The decision to grant this power to Lord Mountbatten, a naval officer nicknamed the “master of disaster” in the admiralty for his propensity to damage warships by precipitate action, was Mr. Attlee’s.
@GuardianAnushka: John Bercow calls on government to make sure David Davis discusses this with Hilary Benn v soon. But says he will consider granting a vote on contempt.
@faisalislam: IDS is asking whether if there is an ex post resolution, whether if the Government past a different motion, that would prevent a charge of contempt of parliament against Brexit ministers
Looks to me as if Mr Rees-Mogg is more interested in the job of Speaker than that of leader of the Conservative party. Smart move: the security of tenure looks much better.
He's making the canniest moves of any of the people associated with hard Brexit to distance himself from the train wreck.
Mogg wants a minority Labour government forced by the SNP and LDs to stay permanently in the single market and leave free movement in place so he can take over as Tory leader of the opposition on a clear hard Brexit platform.
There is a very strong argument that scientists are massively under-represented in politics and in political decision making.
Our greatest ever PM read Chemistry at university, so huzzah for more scientists in politics
Attlee didn't read chemistry at Oxford! IIRC he was a Lawyer!;)
Attlee was evil or incompetent, or both, he has the blood of two million Indians and Pakistanis on his hands.
How do you work that out, Mr Eagles? I thought it was the Indians and the Pakistanis who killed one another.
No one knows exactly how many were beaten, mutilated, tortured or raped in communal violence between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. The death toll has been estimated at 200,000 to two million. Between 10 million and 20 million people were displaced.
Who was to blame? Many in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh (which was East Pakistan until 1971) and Britain have asked that question. There are plenty of candidates. Among the principal players, almost everyone in this story made a decision or misjudgment that contributed to the eventual disaster.
Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy, was told by the British prime minister, Clement Attlee, in March 1947 to negotiate an exit deal with Indian leaders by October; if he could not, Britain would leave India with no deal by June 1948. The decision to speed this up and leave on Aug. 15 was Lord Mountbatten’s. The decision to grant this power to Lord Mountbatten, a naval officer nicknamed the “master of disaster” in the admiralty for his propensity to damage warships by precipitate action, was Mr. Attlee’s.
I don't see how you conclude that. Brexit is a huge problem for the Irish, not of their making. The British preferred approach is no border, but they don't have a Scooby how to get there given the insistence on dropping freedom of movement and given the EU's position about what that means for the single market.
So the Irish, at a time which they believe maximises their negotiating clout, are insisting that before Britain starts to get into the discussions it wants to get into about trade, it must clarify how it sees the border working in practice with minimal impact. The Irish do not want to see a hard border across the island legitimised by the EU. It is recognised in the Good Friday Agreement that the Irish have a legitimate interest in the affairs of northern Ireland. They would much prefer to see northern Ireland given special treatment. The northern Irish themselves seem to think the same, on balance, so far as the limited polling evidence shows.
It is questionable from an Irish perspective whether it is worse to have the economic hit of a disorderly Brexit with an unlegitimised hard border or the lesser but still substantial economic hit of an orderly hard Brexit with a legitimised hard border. But you can't say the position makes zero sense. The contempt which the British have shown for the Irish on the question of the border and the whole question of the status of northern Ireland has been extremely ill-advised.
To repeat what I've already said in a different way, yes, of course Brexit is a huge problem for the Irish, and not of their making, but it will be a hugely less serious problem for them if the EU and UK get on with agreeing a comprehensive trade deal, as the UK have been proposing for the past year or more. So you'd have thought they'd be pushing for that, not obstructing it (and that was, indeed, the position until this newbie became Taoiseach).
You seem to be missing the non-economic driver for the Irish here.
@GuardianAnushka: John Bercow calls on government to make sure David Davis discusses this with Hilary Benn v soon. But says he will consider granting a vote on contempt.
Finding the whole thing bizarre. All seems very self-inflicted from David Davis.
@nickeardleybbc: Scottish Government also not happy with info they've been provided in relation to Brexit analyses - writing to David Davis today to call for the bits that have been left out
There is a very strong argument that scientists are massively under-represented in politics and in political decision making.
Our greatest ever PM read Chemistry at university, so huzzah for more scientists in politics
Attlee didn't read chemistry at Oxford! IIRC he was a Lawyer!;)
Attlee was evil or incompetent, or both, he has the blood of two million Indians and Pakistanis on his hands.
How do you work that out, Mr Eagles? I thought it was the Indians and the Pakistanis who killed one another.
No one knows exactly how many were beaten, mutilated, tortured or raped in communal violence between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. The death toll has been estimated at 200,000 to two million. Between 10 million and 20 million people were displaced.
Who was to blame? Many in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh (which was East Pakistan until 1971) and Britain have asked that question. There are plenty of candidates. Among the principal players, almost everyone in this story made a decision or misjudgment that contributed to the eventual disaster.
Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy, was told by the British prime minister, Clement Attlee, in March 1947 to negotiate an exit deal with Indian leaders by October; if he could not, Britain would leave India with no deal by June 1948. The decision to speed this up and leave on Aug. 15 was Lord Mountbatten’s. The decision to grant this power to Lord Mountbatten, a naval officer nicknamed the “master of disaster” in the admiralty for his propensity to damage warships by precipitate action, was Mr. Attlee’s.
I don't see how you conclude that. Brexit is a huge problem for the Irish, not of their making. The British preferred approach is no border, but they don't have a Scooby how to get there given the insistence on dropping freedom of movement and given the EU's position about what that means for the single market.
So the Irish, at a time which they believe maximises their negotiating clout, are insisting that before Britain starts to get into the discussions it wants to get into about trade, it must clarify how it sees the border working in practice with minimal impact. The Irish do not want to see a hard border across the island legitimised by the EU. It is recognised in the Good Friday Agreement that the Irish have a legitimate interest in the affairs of northern Ireland. They would much prefer to see northern Ireland given special treatment. The northern Irish themselves seem to think the same, on balance, so far as the limited polling evidence shows.
It is questionable from an Irish perspective whether it is worse to have the economic hit of a disorderly Brexit with an unlegitimised hard border or the lesser but still substantial economic hit of an orderly hard Brexit with a legitimised hard border. But you can't say the position makes zero sense. The contempt which the British have shown for the Irish on the question of the border and the whole question of the status of northern Ireland has been extremely ill-advised.
To repeat what I've already said in a different way, yes, of course Brexit is a huge problem for the Irish, and not of their making, but it will be a hugely less serious problem for them if the EU and UK get on with agreeing a comprehensive trade deal, as the UK have been proposing for the past year or more. So you'd have thought they'd be pushing for that, not obstructing it (and that was, indeed, the position until this newbie became Taoiseach).
You seem to be missing the non-economic driver for the Irish here.
Even the economic drivers support their position if they think it can only be resolved by the whole of the UK staying in the single market and customs union, or at least not diverging from it.
Comments
A sizeable chunk of the 48% still had severe misgivings about the EU, but clung to nurse for fear of something worse.
The EU do make it really, really easy to dislike them.
In to 1-3 now.
What would they have done if she'd replied with "14."
How do you know what most people thought?
52% of those who voted had a poor enough opinion of the EU to want to walk away - with all that entails.
A sizeable chunk of the 48% still had severe misgivings about the EU, but clung to nurse for fear of something worse.
The EU do make it really, really easy to dislike them.
All the EU is doing is seeking to minimise the impact of BREXIT on its members. Those members will need to agree to any deal, so it is duty bound to seek the least costs to its members. Dislike it or not, the EU negotiators are acting rationally (and to many of us quite reasonably)..anything less would lead to more uncertainty in the medium term when it is placed before the member states.
Davis would make an interesting contrast to the prep school educated and Shropshire Manor House raised Jeremy Corbyn and that could get under the skin of a class warrior like Corbyn.
I don't buy the "no way, lest we encourage others", line. Both Denmark, on Maastricht, and the Irish, on Lisbon, have been handled in this way before.
I suspect the real answer is that both the EU and UK had had enough of each other.
It is deeply irrational to say we won't talk about trade until we know how the border deals with trade; that because we want a hard border we're willing to crash the trade talks to guarantee a hard border. That is irrational.
The problem the Remainers miss in their forlorn hopes that this will all be cancelled and forgotten about is that the EU really don't care to have us as members anymore.
But, I do have plans to diversify what assets I can away from the UK if McDonnell looks like getting in.
Well it's a view....
The EU had a shockingly bad brand in the UK. Which was why Remain found it harder to sell than a high-mileage Trabant.... If they even tried to sell us the benefits of the EU. The EU has behaved like one of those charities that badger you into joining them with a £5 a month standing order - and then get all outraged when you cancel because you've discovered they had quietly raised that standing order to £250 a month.
Where is the equivalent for the UK?
The EU has done the opposite, and taken Dave's deal off the table.
He does have a friendly demeanour, but that isn't really enough.
The EU could and should do nothing until the British government had shown it had the slightest inclination to have a rethink. Since it doesn't, why on earth would the EU start making offers out of the blue like Des O'Connor on Take Your Pick?
He also tied for first with JRM in the Frank Luntz focus group of Tory swing voters last month, ahead of Boris, Rudd and Hammond.
When you have popular (and high-profile) mainstream writers tweeting "voting Labour is basically about not being a c*nt", then you tacitly endorse all of this behaviour, by implying everyone else is a c*nt, and therefore fair game.
"The Treaty of Lisbon stated that the size of the Commission will reduce from one per member state to one for two thirds of member states from 2014, with an equal rotation over time. This would have ended the arrangement which has existed since 1957 of having at least one Commissioner for each Member State at all times. However, the Treaty also provided[46] that the European Council could unanimously decide to alter this number. Following the first Irish referendum on Lisbon, the European Council decided in December 2008 to revert to one Commissioner per member state with effect from the date of entry into force of the Treaty"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Commission
But, you might be right. If the EU had offered that veto, plus a stronger emergency brake on migration numbers and kept Dave's deal on the table, it might have been enough.
James Bond: You must be joking.
Q: Why, because I'm not wearing a lab coat?
James Bond: Because you still have spots.
Q: My complexion is hardly relevant.
James Bond: Your competence is.
Q: Age is no guarantee of efficiency.
James Bond: And youth is no guarantee of innovation.
Q: Well, I'll hazard I can do more damage on my laptop sitting in my pajamas before my first cup of Earl Grey than you can do in a year in the field.
James Bond: Oh, so why do you need me?
Q: Every now and then a trigger has to be pulled.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/06/24/joint-statement-uk-referendum/
They then offered very little other than sorrow to David Cameron when he went over there a few days later on 28th/29th June.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/935489681000714241
A request to the government: I've long ago given up on any idea of integrity or intelligence in the handling of Brexit, but can you please try at least keeping your lies consistent?
So to try and explain how things have become so shouty in politics. One side keep claiming anyone in Labour is a communist - Red Ed would destroy investment by regulating energy and building houses, yet when the Tories do the same thing they say its sensible.
And then on my side we do have a collected bee in our bonnet about basic immorality of some Tory policies. If I have crossed the line with the good people on PB I apologise. I do know that many Tory ministers and supporters are highly intelligent educated people. So when all of the evidence of the brutalising effect AND economic incompetence of various Tory policies gets ignored and dismissed by said intelligent people, the conclusion drawn is that you don't care.
If you think the key economic focus still has to be on cuts then fine - thats an argument. But you are also people, there has to be another way to do it than to leave cancer patients dying in abject poverty. There are always a huge number of options available and money available on trees when required by you, but when it comes to not leaving the poorest destitute AND creating a major crisis with local authorities AND leaving landlords with huge arrears the message is always pivoted back to something Labour did in the past.
So come on Tories. Its only your policies and attitudes of the Cameron/May era that have been c*nty. Why not reconnect with your values and basic decency and change. Before uncaring c*unts becomes all that the millennial generation think of you
I must confess I am also disappointed in a few of our political class.
[Sir Keir Starmer] says he is worried to hear that the [Brexit sectoral impact] information fills just two lever arch files. He says that, in his old job as DPP, that is the amount of paperwork you would expect for a standard crown court case.
That, ladies and gentlemen, tells you nothing about Brexit, but it does sum up in two pithy sentences exactly what is wrong with our justice system.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/28/irish-government-collapse-averted-as-deputy-pm-frances-fitzgerald-resigns
Now the UK government just needs to come up with something even vestigially coherent as an approach to the Irish border.
Not that it affected many in continental Europe of course, let alone the canteen at the Berlaymont one suspects.
Who was to blame? Many in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh (which was East Pakistan until 1971) and Britain have asked that question. There are plenty of candidates. Among the principal players, almost everyone in this story made a decision or misjudgment that contributed to the eventual disaster.
Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy, was told by the British prime minister, Clement Attlee, in March 1947 to negotiate an exit deal with Indian leaders by October; if he could not, Britain would leave India with no deal by June 1948. The decision to speed this up and leave on Aug. 15 was Lord Mountbatten’s. The decision to grant this power to Lord Mountbatten, a naval officer nicknamed the “master of disaster” in the admiralty for his propensity to damage warships by precipitate action, was Mr. Attlee’s.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/opinion/india-pakistan-partition-imperial-britain.html
This strikes me as a good test of objectivity in Remain-supporting commentators. By any objective standard, irrespective of whether you think Brexit is great or a looming disaster, the Irish/EU position makes zero sense. It should hardly be a matter for disagreement that arrangements for the Irish border will necessarily depend on what regulations and tariffs they are trying to police at the border.
I expected that because, to be honest, that had been the MO before in other votes and because I thought that both sides would be sufficiently shocked by such a result and its possible consequences to see whether the differences could be bridged.
I was wrong about that. But I still think a pity that something like this did not happen.
#BrexitReports #Brexit
Doesn't Liechtenstein actually have control of freedom of movement (via a tiny quota per annum?) for instance even though it's in the EEA? Now it's only a pinprick on the map with a nice castle, and a world leading position in the false teeth market (no, really), but it's funny how the EU can get "creative" when it wants to.
We all need a bit of a Nelsonian blind eye both ways round when it comes to NI
To make the EU's position even more absurd, if there is any hard border, it will on the Irish side. The UK is perfectly happy for there to be a completely free flow of goods and agricultural products across the border.
All that guff about the SAS and he’s yellow when the heat is on.
So the Irish, at a time which they believe maximises their negotiating clout, are insisting that before Britain starts to get into the discussions it wants to get into about trade, it must clarify how it sees the border working in practice with minimal impact. The Irish do not want to see a hard border across the island legitimised by the EU. It is recognised in the Good Friday Agreement that the Irish have a legitimate interest in the affairs of northern Ireland. They would much prefer to see northern Ireland given special treatment. The northern Irish themselves seem to think the same, on balance, so far as the limited polling evidence shows.
It is questionable from an Irish perspective whether it is worse to have the economic hit of a disorderly Brexit with an unlegitimised hard border or the lesser but still substantial economic hit of an orderly hard Brexit with a legitimised hard border. But you can't say the position makes zero sense. The contempt which the British have shown for the Irish on the question of the border and the whole question of the status of northern Ireland has been extremely ill-advised.
I still don't see how you'd find the money for all you'd like to do, and ascribing it to a difference in values doesn't really cut it.
@Cyclefree
One of the flaws that drove me to "out" was precisely the EU's habit of having more votes until we all got it "right".
In any decently ordered world, once various countries had voted "no" to the Constitution they should've come back with something far more watered down and genuinely noted the populaces' rejection of the scale and breadth of what had been offered. They didn't. They changed the title of the document and sailed on regardless and so doubled down on the deed.
The EU has only itself to blame if its repeated failure to actually take note of the people fed in to the Brexit vote and helped push it over the line.
On current polls he may well get it.
All seems very self-inflicted from David Davis.
Might be time to back DD as next out of the cabinet.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/11/05/how-the-government-is-imperilling-its-brexit-bill/
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/935500328887312384