Once again our resident Brexiters are complaining that the EU and Ireland aren't compliantly agreeing to pretend that a difficult problem that they have created can be imagined away.
If Britain is going to be outside a customs union, it is going to be outside a customs union. This does not seem too complex an idea for many but it seems to produce far too high a voltage for Leaver minds to handle.
As you know I'm not a Leaver, but I still don't see what the problem is. There are currently customs regulations (you can't transport booze'n'fags across the border and sell them, without filling in the forms and paying the excise duty), and no physical customs posts are required. So why should the EU need to install physical customs posts on the off-chance that someone might load up a van with chlorinated chickens and take them to Dublin?
As ever Richard, you're being far too fleet of foot and eager to solve problems, rather than moan about them, for the determined Remainers....
Once again our resident Brexiters are complaining that the EU and Ireland aren't compliantly agreeing to pretend that a difficult problem that they have created can be imagined away.
If Britain is going to be outside a customs union, it is going to be outside a customs union. This does not seem too complex an idea for many but it seems to produce far too high a voltage for Leaver minds to handle.
Yawn.
Pre-Varadkar, the Irish govt. seemed happy to entertain a solution.
Of course it was created by Leavers. They voted to Leave the EU, thus upending previous arrangements. That's a simple statement of fact.
Leavers' inability to take responsibility for anything at all is one of the modern wonders of the world.
So, deflection?
Varadkar changed Irish Govt policy re: a border solution.
Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.
>40% of Tory voters support nationalising Royal Mail, railway companies and water companies. I'll admit that finding surprised me too!
Labour's proposed nationalisations are favoured by the general public according to the polling.
Ask them this: if there are billions of pounds going to be borrowed would you a) spend it on renationalising water, rail, Royal Mail or b) the NHS?
Their answer would probably be to invest in renationalising those industries, and use the vast and unending profits not only to pay off the debt, but also to invest in the NHS.
Besides, the Magic Money Tree always gives. Why not do both?
Given that in the last 7 odd years only £13bn has been paid in dividends by the water companies that Magic Money Tree is looking a little weedy.
Water should never ever be in the hands of private companies. We have great water supply and much lower bills.
You have excess water in Scotland...
We have an excess of midges in Scotland, if anyone wants a couple of million or so, just let me know....
You should farm them. Insect protein steak will be the staple food of the 2030s...
By 2030, your steak will come out of a 3D printer, like most of your food.
Probably from reconstituted midge protein. Buy into it now.....
Typo, obviously, I meant the Staples food of the 2030s...
Once again our resident Brexiters are complaining that the EU and Ireland aren't compliantly agreeing to pretend that a difficult problem that they have created can be imagined away.
If Britain is going to be outside a customs union, it is going to be outside a customs union. This does not seem too complex an idea for many but it seems to produce far too high a voltage for Leaver minds to handle.
Yawn.
Pre-Varadkar, the Irish govt. seemed happy to entertain a solution.
Of course it was created by Leavers. They voted to Leave the EU, thus upending previous arrangements. That's a simple statement of fact.
Leavers' inability to take responsibility for anything at all is one of the modern wonders of the world.
So, deflection?
Varadkar changed Irish Govt policy re: a border solution.
Mr Kenny insisted. “This is not a technological issue. It is a political issue.”
So, if you actually read the article, it states:
'Mr Kenny said the Government had not directed officials to go looking at sites for the possibility that they would need large car parks or sites for lorries.'
So, there was no plan for a hard border at all. But equally no threats of derailing the Brexit talks.
As might be expected those not well disposed toward Labour not happy with Don's comments (thanks for the piece, Don, by the way) and wheeling out the old classics of Corbyn going to turn Britain into Venezuela (well, at least it'll be warmer in February - perfect if I have to stand in a queue to buy soap).
Venezuela is chosen as an example because it embodies exactly his policies, and he has been enthusiastic in his praise what Maduro and Chavez have done. So it's an 'old classic' for extremely good reason.
Of course this might be because they didn't do it right. Perhaps you can point to a counter-example, a country where Corbyn-style policies have worked well?
Bernie Sanders used Denmark as an example for his campaign.Democratic Socialism .He seemed to be onto something .
Ha! Denmark! That loony-left country where they, err, ran a budget surplus for years, and where the finance minister apologised to voters for the fact that the 2008/9 crisis pushed them into a small deficit, and where they've been busy privatising for years (not that they had a particularly high proportion of nationalised industries in the first place).
Denmark is indeed a good example of a centre-left social democratic country, such as perhaps Blair or Alastair Darling might want to emulate, with higher taxes and higher spending than us but with sound finances, and a pro-private business mindset. It's not an advert for Corbynomics, though. The sad thing is that Labour could be proposing a Denmark-style model, but chooses not to.
I did say I thought Denmark was in my opinion Social Democratic .From an American perspective it is socialist, as is our Marxist NHS.I would prefer that Labour were proposing a Denmark style model.
My understanding is that the water sector in Denmark is exclusively run by public utilities/cooperatives, that their energy is provided predominantly by local cooperatives and mutuals (with a very high share of renewables) and that their railways are publicly owned.
Sounds like a Corbyn agenda to me.
I think Danish tax rates are much higher than what Corbyn is proposing though.
This is an opportunity for Jezza, but I doubt he'll take it. As well as arguing for more funding for the police, he'd do his cause some good if he was to say that the police also needed to stop pissing our money up the wall on stuff like this.
Once again our resident Brexiters are complaining that the EU and Ireland aren't compliantly agreeing to pretend that a difficult problem that they have created can be imagined away.
If Britain is going to be outside a customs union, it is going to be outside a customs union. This does not seem too complex an idea for many but it seems to produce far too high a voltage for Leaver minds to handle.
Yawn.
Pre-Varadkar, the Irish govt. seemed happy to entertain a solution.
Of course it was created by Leavers. They voted to Leave the EU, thus upending previous arrangements. That's a simple statement of fact.
Leavers' inability to take responsibility for anything at all is one of the modern wonders of the world.
So, deflection?
Varadkar changed Irish Govt policy re: a border solution.
Mr Kenny insisted. “This is not a technological issue. It is a political issue.”
So, if you actually read the article, it states:
'Mr Kenny said the Government had not directed officials to go looking at sites for the possibility that they would need large car parks or sites for lorries.'
So, there was no plan for a hard border at all. But equally no threats of derailing the Brexit talks.
So it wasn’t a change of policy, just a change of tone.
Mr. Dawning, the first of those is irrelevant to the CU, and the last existed decades ago and is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, humans leaving a swimming pool are chlorinated and somehow manage to survive.
With chlorinated chicken, the issue is not is chlorinated chicken safe?, to which the answer is an unambiguous yes.
But, should British farmers be held to a higher standard of food safety (and therefore costs), than competitors?
Rephrased as - should British consumers continue to enjoy higher standards of food safety than Americans?
I have been well disposed as you put it towards Labour all my life. I voted Labour at every election since Harold Wilson was leader in the 70s.
The current Labour leadership is at best Citizen Smith incompetent, and at worst thoroughly nasty. We have a shadow chancellor who thinks its ok to threaten to lynch women, a hopeless leader and if anyone thinks Diane Abbott is the dream home secretary, they must be insane. Militant is taking over the Party with a new name, antisemitism is rife, there is massive online intimidation against moderates, Corbyn supporters are creating a Cult of Personality with songs and poems to the Leader that we have not seen since Stalin, and Labour has just lost a general election with about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010, and is currently three points behind the Tories and heading for a fourth defeat.
Some of us are crying out for decent leadership in the Labour party -which is the cue for people like you to accuse me of being a Blairite or Tory because thats the only answer you can think of.
Your contempt for Corbyn is well known here and shared by many. I don't know the inner workings of the Labour Party so I can't argue with your view though Nick Palmer doesn't seem to be as concerned as you but that's his business.
I'm not going to call you a Blairite or a Tory. Harold Wilson ran and won on a centrist agenda in 1964 and also because he offered a modern vision for Britain entering a new technological age.
I also think however you crunch statistics, calling the next election for the Conservatives is a bold move - you may be right, you may not.
I agree with that entirely. Moreover, this contributor has never tried to explain why Labour is now performing better under Corbyn than it managed to do under Gaitskell back in 1960 & 1961!
Once again our resident Brexiters are complaining that the EU and Ireland aren't compliantly agreeing to pretend that a difficult problem that they have created can be imagined away.
If Britain is going to be outside a customs union, it is going to be outside a customs union. This does not seem too complex an idea for many but it seems to produce far too high a voltage for Leaver minds to handle.
Yawn.
Pre-Varadkar, the Irish govt. seemed happy to entertain a solution.
Of course it was created by Leavers. They voted to Leave the EU, thus upending previous arrangements. That's a simple statement of fact.
Leavers' inability to take responsibility for anything at all is one of the modern wonders of the world.
So, deflection?
Varadkar changed Irish Govt policy re: a border solution.
Hardly deflection. You highlighted one word of my post and gave the kind of inane comment that Marcus Fysh would have been proud of. So I pointed out that you were being particularly stupid, even by your own low standards.
The Irish position is entirely logical. It's based around identity. But Leavers don't accept that anyone else can have identity concerns. Leavers are to be allowed to indulge their own insular prejudices and others are expected to play along with those.
Mr. Dawning, the first of those is irrelevant to the CU, and the last existed decades ago and is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, humans leaving a swimming pool are chlorinated and somehow manage to survive.
With chlorinated chicken, the issue is not is chlorinated chicken safe?, to which the answer is an unambiguous yes.
But, should British farmers be held to a higher standard of food safety (and therefore costs), than competitors?
Rephrased as - should British consumers continue to enjoy higher standards of food safety than Americans?
Would customs Union keep out chlorinated chicken? If so I am sold..
Once again our resident Brexiters are complaining that the EU and Ireland aren't compliantly agreeing to pretend that a difficult problem that they have created can be imagined away.
If Britain is going to be outside a customs union, it is going to be outside a customs union. This does not seem too complex an idea for many but it seems to produce far too high a voltage for Leaver minds to handle.
As you know I'm not a Leaver, but I still don't see what the problem is. There are currently customs regulations (you can't transport booze'n'fags across the border and sell them, without filling in the forms and paying the excise duty), and no physical customs posts are required. So why should the EU need to install physical customs posts on the off-chance that someone might load up a van with chlorinated chickens and take them to Dublin?
If Britain is outside the customs union, it cannot give preferential treatment to the EU over other countries, or it will be in breach of its Most Favoured Nation obligations. I expect a certain amount of leeway would be given by the WTO given the history of Ireland, but neither side can simply wish the problem away.
Once again our resident Brexiters are complaining that the EU and Ireland aren't compliantly agreeing to pretend that a difficult problem that they have created can be imagined away.
If Britain is going to be outside a customs union, it is going to be outside a customs union. This does not seem too complex an idea for many but it seems to produce far too high a voltage for Leaver minds to handle.
Yawn.
Pre-Varadkar, the Irish govt. seemed happy to entertain a solution.
Of course it was created by Leavers. They voted to Leave the EU, thus upending previous arrangements. That's a simple statement of fact.
Leavers' inability to take responsibility for anything at all is one of the modern wonders of the world.
So, deflection?
Varadkar changed Irish Govt policy re: a border solution.
Hardly deflection. You highlighted one word of my post and gave the kind of inane comment that Marcus Fysh would have been proud of. So I pointed out that you were being particularly stupid, even by your own low standards.
The Irish position is entirely logical. It's based around identity. But Leavers don't accept that anyone else can have identity concerns. Leavers are to be allowed to indulge their own insular prejudices and others are expected to play along with those.
Yawn.
The new, improved Irish Govt position is ridiculous. If you don't avoid a hard border, we'll pull the plug and ensure a hard border.
Once again our resident Brexiters are complaining that the EU and Ireland aren't compliantly agreeing to pretend that a difficult problem that they have created can be imagined away.
If Britain is going to be outside a customs union, it is going to be outside a customs union. This does not seem too complex an idea for many but it seems to produce far too high a voltage for Leaver minds to handle.
Yawn.
Pre-Varadkar, the Irish govt. seemed happy to entertain a solution.
Of course it was created by Leavers. They voted to Leave the EU, thus upending previous arrangements. That's a simple statement of fact.
Leavers' inability to take responsibility for anything at all is one of the modern wonders of the world.
So, deflection?
Varadkar changed Irish Govt policy re: a border solution.
Mr Kenny insisted. “This is not a technological issue. It is a political issue.”
So, if you actually read the article, it states:
'Mr Kenny said the Government had not directed officials to go looking at sites for the possibility that they would need large car parks or sites for lorries.'
So, there was no plan for a hard border at all. But equally no threats of derailing the Brexit talks.
So it wasn’t a change of policy, just a change of tone.
So Kenny's government wasn't working with Britain on a technological solution, right?
Mr. Dawning, the first of those is irrelevant to the CU, and the last existed decades ago and is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, humans leaving a swimming pool are chlorinated and somehow manage to survive.
With chlorinated chicken, the issue is not is chlorinated chicken safe?, to which the answer is an unambiguous yes.
But, should British farmers be held to a higher standard of food safety (and therefore costs), than competitors?
Rephrased as - should British consumers continue to enjoy higher standards of food safety than Americans?
Would customs Union keep out chlorinated chicken? If so I am sold..
I don't know. As a simplification I think the single market is to do with common standards and level playing field and customs union is to do with common tariffs. But that may be an over simplification. Perhaps an expert on here could clarify?
Once again our resident Brexiters are complaining that the EU and Ireland aren't compliantly agreeing to pretend that a difficult problem that they have created can be imagined away.
If Britain is going to be outside a customs union, it is going to be outside a customs union. This does not seem too complex an idea for many but it seems to produce far too high a voltage for Leaver minds to handle.
As you know I'm not a Leaver, but I still don't see what the problem is. There are currently customs regulations (you can't transport booze'n'fags across the border and sell them, without filling in the forms and paying the excise duty), and no physical customs posts are required. So why should the EU need to install physical customs posts on the off-chance that someone might load up a van with chlorinated chickens and take them to Dublin?
If Britain is outside the customs union, it cannot give preferential treatment to the EU over other countries, or it will be in breach of its Most Favoured Nation obligations. I expect a certain amount of leeway would be given by the WTO given the history of Ireland, but neither side can simply wish the problem away.
Britain only has one land border, so that's not a problem. If you mean that the EU has to have identical levels of customs inspections on all its land borders under WTO rules, I'd be interested to see any evidence of this. I'm 99% certain that there's nothing in WTO rules which prevents nations having sensible risk-based customs arrangements, concentrating enforcement on the most important borders. Lots of people keep repeating or implying that there is, but entirely without any supporting evidence as far as I can see.
Furthermore, the UK position is that we'd have a Free Trade Agreement with the EU. So the problem goes away anyway. You can have a FTA without a Customs Union.
Mr. Dawning, the first of those is irrelevant to the CU, and the last existed decades ago and is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, humans leaving a swimming pool are chlorinated and somehow manage to survive.
With chlorinated chicken, the issue is not is chlorinated chicken safe?, to which the answer is an unambiguous yes.
But, should British farmers be held to a higher standard of food safety (and therefore costs), than competitors?
Rephrased as - should British consumers continue to enjoy higher standards of food safety than Americans?
Would customs Union keep out chlorinated chicken? If so I am sold..
I don't know. As a simplification I think the single market is to do with common standards and level playing field and customs union is to do with common tariffs. But that may be an over simplification. Perhaps an expert on here could clarify?
If we remained in _the_ customs union, we'd be bound by EU FTAs. So, for example, if TTIP were resurrected, and chlorinated chicken (let's deem it symbolic of 'lower food standards') were part of that FTA, then we'd be able to buy it, if the market existed.
*In 1983, they had to completely volte face anyway - its still called the "tournant de la rigueur"
and they had all the same issues with deindustrialisation we had anyway on top of that.
Brilliant.
I never suggested the Mauroy Government was successful. I was asked what kind of Government I thought an incoming Corbyn administration would resemble.
I suspect just as Mauroy in France and Heath in Britain, Corbyn and McDonnell would start trying to be radical but would backtrack under pressure and become more centrist. Heath threw the "Selsdon Man" manifesto under the bus in the face of Union pressure and I suspect Corbyn will face a financial crisis within 24 months of coming into Government which will force a change of tack.
*In 1983, they had to completely volte face anyway - its still called the "tournant de la rigueur"
and they had all the same issues with deindustrialisation we had anyway on top of that.
Brilliant.
I never suggested the Mauroy Government was successful. I was asked what kind of Government I thought an incoming Corbyn administration would resemble.
I suspect just as Mauroy in France and Heath in Britain, Corbyn and McDonnell would start trying to be radical but would backtrack under pressure and become more centrist. Heath threw the "Selsdon Man" manifesto under the bus in the face of Union pressure and I suspect Corbyn will face a financial crisis within 24 months of coming into Government which will force a change of tack.
Financial crises can surely be triumphantly solved by McDonnell - nothing he proposes seems to cost money......?
Financial crises can surely be triumphantly solved by McDonnell - nothing he proposes seems to cost money......?
Quite and it's fascinating they have publicly stated they have "gamed" a financial crisis. To be fair, that puts Labour several steps ahead of John Major in 1992 who looked all at sea when the Soros storm hit but there you are.
It would hardly be surprising to McDonnell if there wasn't an adverse market reaction to his policies and equally hardly surprising he's looking at how to respond.
Once again our resident Brexiters are complaining that the EU and Ireland aren't compliantly agreeing to pretend that a difficult problem that they have created can be imagined away.
If Britain is going to be outside a customs union, it is going to be outside a customs union. This does not seem too complex an idea for many but it seems to produce far too high a voltage for Leaver minds to handle.
As you know I'm not a Leaver, but I still don't see what the problem is. There are currently customs regulations (you can't transport booze'n'fags across the border and sell them, without filling in the forms and paying the excise duty), and no physical customs posts are required. So why should the EU need to install physical customs posts on the off-chance that someone might load up a van with chlorinated chickens and take them to Dublin?
If Britain is outside the customs union, it cannot give preferential treatment to the EU over other countries, or it will be in breach of its Most Favoured Nation obligations. I expect a certain amount of leeway would be given by the WTO given the history of Ireland, but neither side can simply wish the problem away.
Once again our resident Brexiters are complaining that the EU and Ireland aren't compliantly agreeing to pretend that a difficult problem that they have created can be imagined away.
If Britain is going to be outside a customs union, it is going to be outside a customs union. This does not seem too complex an idea for many but it seems to produce far too high a voltage for Leaver minds to handle.
Yawn.
Pre-Varadkar, the Irish govt. seemed happy to entertain a solution.
Of course it was created by Leavers. They voted to Leave the EU, thus upending previous arrangements. That's a simple statement of fact.
Leavers' inability to take responsibility for anything at all is one of the modern wonders of the world.
So, deflection?
Varadkar changed Irish Govt policy re: a border solution.
What is the end game of endless Remainer-moaning about every single proposed solution?
Is it to prevent Brexit?
Is it to delay Brexit?
Is it just to 'prove' 'superiority' of the Remainer world view?
Is it inability to accept the fact that we're leaving the EU, SM and CU....?
Inquiring minds want to know.
It's justifiable and reasonable to ask questions and raise issues. That's part of the democratic process.
As a LEAVE voter, I want an A50 that works for both us and the EU as an ideal. I'd much prefer that to one that works for the Conservative Party rather than the country.
Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.
>40% of Tory voters support nationalising Royal Mail, railway companies and water companies. I'll admit that finding surprised me too!
Labour's proposed nationalisations are favoured by the general public according to the polling.
Ask them this: if there are billions of pounds going to be borrowed would you a) spend it on renationalising water, rail, Royal Mail or b) the NHS?
Their answer would probably be to invest in renationalising those industries, and use the vast and unending profits not only to pay off the debt, but also to invest in the NHS.
Besides, the Magic Money Tree always gives. Why not do both?
Given that in the last 7 odd years only £13bn has been paid in dividends by the water companies that Magic Money Tree is looking a little weedy.
Water should never ever be in the hands of private companies. We have great water supply and much lower bills.
Be fair, you do have an awful lot of water on tap, as it were.
What are you talking about? Its not rained since 11.00.
What is the end game of endless Remainer-moaning about every single proposed solution?
Is it to prevent Brexit?
Is it to delay Brexit?
Is it just to 'prove' 'superiority' of the Remainer world view?
Is it inability to accept the fact that we're leaving the EU, SM and CU....?
Inquiring minds want to know.
It's because they have a house in Tuscany.
Whatever it is, it dispels the other espoused view that 'Leavers need to get on with Brexit'.
Very difficult to get on with it when there is a continual drone preventing progress...
Leavers need to start taking responsibility for their own inadequacies. The caterwauling when it was suggested before the referendum vote that Brexit might be difficult and painful was more discordant than rutting cats. Now that reality has bit and the many difficulties are causing angst, they cast about wildly for others to blame. But they need to start looking in the mirror.
What is the end game of endless Remainer-moaning about every single proposed solution?
Is it to prevent Brexit?
Is it to delay Brexit?
Is it just to 'prove' 'superiority' of the Remainer world view?
Is it inability to accept the fact that we're leaving the EU, SM and CU....?
Inquiring minds want to know.
It's justifiable and reasonable to ask questions and raise issues. That's part of the democratic process.
As a LEAVE voter, I want an A50 that works for both us and the EU as an ideal. I'd much prefer that to one that works for the Conservative Party rather than the country.
Mr. Dawning, the first of those is irrelevant to the CU, and the last existed decades ago and is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, humans leaving a swimming pool are chlorinated and somehow manage to survive.
With chlorinated chicken, the issue is not is chlorinated chicken safe?, to which the answer is an unambiguous yes.
But, should British farmers be held to a higher standard of food safety (and therefore costs), than competitors?
Rephrased as - should British consumers continue to enjoy higher standards of food safety than Americans?
Would customs Union keep out chlorinated chicken? If so I am sold..
I don't know. As a simplification I think the single market is to do with common standards and level playing field and customs union is to do with common tariffs. But that may be an over simplification. Perhaps an expert on here could clarify?
If we remained in _the_ customs union, we'd be bound by EU FTAs. So, for example, if TTIP were resurrected, and chlorinated chicken (let's deem it symbolic of 'lower food standards') were part of that FTA, then we'd be able to buy it, if the market existed.
Strictly speaking, i.e. As far as the WTO is concerned, a customs union is purely a shared tariff. Product regulation would be a Single Market issue. Keeping the EU FTAs would be GREAT. There is essentially no chance of replicating them soon or to the same standard later.
Mr. Dawning, the first of those is irrelevant to the CU, and the last existed decades ago and is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, humans leaving a swimming pool are chlorinated and somehow manage to survive.
With chlorinated chicken, the issue is not is chlorinated chicken safe?, to which the answer is an unambiguous yes.
But, should British farmers be held to a higher standard of food safety (and therefore costs), than competitors?
Rephrased as - should British consumers continue to enjoy higher standards of food safety than Americans?
Would customs Union keep out chlorinated chicken? If so I am sold..
I don't know. As a simplification I think the single market is to do with common standards and level playing field and customs union is to do with common tariffs. But that may be an over simplification. Perhaps an expert on here could clarify?
If we remained in _the_ customs union, we'd be bound by EU FTAs. So, for example, if TTIP were resurrected, and chlorinated chicken (let's deem it symbolic of 'lower food standards') were part of that FTA, then we'd be able to buy it, if the market existed.
Strictly speaking, i.e. As far as the WTO is concerned, a customs union is purely a shared tariff. Product regulation would be a Single Market issue. Keeping the EU FTAs would be GREAT. There is essentially no chance of replicating them soon or to the same standard later.
Yes. I've tried not to get involved in the minutiae of Brexit implementation - as we've all seen, it's a recipe for frustration as the cabinet squabbles and May dithers.
However, I'm genuinely surprised by the indecent haste with which we seem to be racing off to some magical bespoke deal. Given that we've had thirty-odd years of the Single Market, it would make sense to undock in a gradual fashion (I await William's inevitable comment!).
What is the end game of endless Remainer-moaning about every single proposed solution?
Is it to prevent Brexit?
Is it to delay Brexit?
Is it just to 'prove' 'superiority' of the Remainer world view?
Is it inability to accept the fact that we're leaving the EU, SM and CU....?
Inquiring minds want to know.
It's because they have a house in Tuscany.
Whatever it is, it dispels the other espoused view that 'Leavers need to get on with Brexit'.
Very difficult to get on with it when there is a continual drone preventing progress...
Leavers need to start taking responsibility for their own inadequacies. The caterwauling when it was suggested before the referendum vote that Brexit might be difficult and painful was more discordant than rutting cats. Now that reality has bit and the many difficulties are causing angst, they cast about wildly for others to blame. But they need to start looking in the mirror.
Either a) we are and always have always been sovereign, free to make our own laws, to come and go as we please or b) we are so intertwined in a political union which dramatically limits our freedom of action that it is effectively impossible to leave.
Choose one.
Hint: If you choose B, it doesn't strengthen the case for remain, or the EU in general. The more difficult it is to leave, the more it proves the case that our sovereignty has been lost.
Mr. Dawning, the first of those is irrelevant to the CU, and the last existed decades ago and is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, humans leaving a swimming pool are chlorinated and somehow manage to survive.
With chlorinated chicken, the issue is not is chlorinated chicken safe?, to which the answer is an unambiguous yes.
But, should British farmers be held to a higher standard of food safety (and therefore costs), than competitors?
Rephrased as - should British consumers continue to enjoy higher standards of food safety than Americans?
Would customs Union keep out chlorinated chicken? If so I am sold..
I don't know. As a simplification I think the single market is to do with common standards and level playing field and customs union is to do with common tariffs. But that may be an over simplification. Perhaps an expert on here could clarify?
If we remained in _the_ customs union, we'd be bound by EU FTAs. So, for example, if TTIP were resurrected, and chlorinated chicken (let's deem it symbolic of 'lower food standards') were part of that FTA, then we'd be able to buy it, if the market existed.
Strictly speaking, i.e. As far as the WTO is concerned, a customs union is purely a shared tariff. Product regulation would be a Single Market issue. Keeping the EU FTAs would be GREAT. There is essentially no chance of replicating them soon or to the same standard later.
That's what I thought. We need to be in the single market AND in the customs union AND preserve the EU FTAs. What are we waiting for? MPs -just do it. Take back control. That's what we voted for.
What is the end game of endless Remainer-moaning about every single proposed solution?
Is it to prevent Brexit?
Is it to delay Brexit?
Is it just to 'prove' 'superiority' of the Remainer world view?
Is it inability to accept the fact that we're leaving the EU, SM and CU....?
Inquiring minds want to know.
It's because they have a house in Tuscany.
Whatever it is, it dispels the other espoused view that 'Leavers need to get on with Brexit'.
Very difficult to get on with it when there is a continual drone preventing progress...
Leavers need to start taking responsibility for their own inadequacies. The caterwauling when it was suggested before the referendum vote that Brexit might be difficult and painful was more discordant than rutting cats. Now that reality has bit and the many difficulties are causing angst, they cast about wildly for others to blame. But they need to start looking in the mirror.
Either a) we are and always have always been sovereign, free to make our own laws, to come and go as we please or b) we are so intertwined in a political union which dramatically limits our freedom of action that it is effectively impossible to leave.
Choose one.
Hint: If you choose B, it doesn't strengthen the case for remain, or the EU in general. The more difficult it is to leave, the more it proves the case that our sovereignty has been lost.
How easy do you think it would be to leave the WTO?
What is the end game of endless Remainer-moaning about every single proposed solution?
Is it to prevent Brexit?
Is it to delay Brexit?
Is it just to 'prove' 'superiority' of the Remainer world view?
Is it inability to accept the fact that we're leaving the EU, SM and CU....?
Inquiring minds want to know.
It's because they have a house in Tuscany.
Whatever it is, it dispels the other espoused view that 'Leavers need to get on with Brexit'.
Very difficult to get on with it when there is a continual drone preventing progress...
Leavers need to start taking responsibility for their own inadequacies. The caterwauling when it was suggested before the referendum vote that Brexit might be difficult and painful was more discordant than rutting cats. Now that reality has bit and the many difficulties are causing angst, they cast about wildly for others to blame. But they need to start looking in the mirror.
The only inadequacy that many of us are trying to overturn is that the birthright of determination over our own laws was surrendered by Europhiles and Declinists.
A constitutional inadequacy.
I wonder why so many prominent Europhiles are resisting?
If only others followed his _constructive_ example...
Indeed and I'm more than happy we are leaving the pernicious mechanism that is the Single Market and we have to leave the Customs Union unless we want BINO.
My concern is 20 months after the vote and nearly 12 months after A50 was initiated, I am still struggling to define the Government's position. I appreciate it's a negotiation but it's not the Magical Mystery Tour and some sense of the destination would be nice.
I appreciate the political dimension and May's need to hold the Conservative Party and how helpful the lack of a coherent direction is in hampering the Opposition but none of that is relevant to me.
I am told by HYUFD that all May wants is a Free Trade Agreement with the EU - sounds simple which probably means it isn't. We've paid some amount for that - 60 billion euros perhaps, no one is willing to say.
Thus all we have is the drip-drip of rumour and occasional briefing papers - little surprise questions are asked, equally little surprise answers aren't forthcoming.
Mr. Dawning, the first of those is irrelevant to the CU, and the last existed decades ago and is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, humans leaving a swimming pool are chlorinated and somehow manage to survive.
With chlorinated chicken, the issue is not is chlorinated chicken safe?, to which the answer is an unambiguous yes.
But, should British farmers be held to a higher standard of food safety (and therefore costs), than competitors?
Rephrased as - should British consumers continue to enjoy higher standards of food safety than Americans?
Would customs Union keep out chlorinated chicken? If so I am sold..
I don't know. As a simplification I think the single market is to do with common standards and level playing field and customs union is to do with common tariffs. But that may be an over simplification. Perhaps an expert on here could clarify?
If we remained in _the_ customs union, we'd be bound by EU FTAs. So, for example, if TTIP were resurrected, and chlorinated chicken (let's deem it symbolic of 'lower food standards') were part of that FTA, then we'd be able to buy it, if the market existed.
Strictly speaking, i.e. As far as the WTO is concerned, a customs union is purely a shared tariff. Product regulation would be a Single Market issue. Keeping the EU FTAs would be GREAT. There is essentially no chance of replicating them soon or to the same standard later.
Yes. I've tried not to get involved in the minutiae of Brexit implementation - as we've all seen, it's a recipe for frustration as the cabinet squabbles and May dithers.
However, I'm genuinely surprised by the indecent haste with which we seem to be racing off to some magical bespoke deal. (I await William's inevitable comment!).
I think many of us echo that. Providing no reverse ferret is possible, I'm very relaxed about a longer transition.
As might be expected those not well disposed toward Labour not happy with Don's comments (thanks for the piece, Don, by the way) and wheeling out the old classics of Corbyn going to turn Britain into Venezuela (well, at least it'll be warmer in February - perfect if I have to stand in a queue to buy soap).
Venezuela is chosen as an example because it embodies exactly his policies, and he has been enthusiastic in his praise what Maduro and Chavez have done. So it's an 'old classic' for extremely good reason.
Of course this might be because they didn't do it right. Perhaps you can point to a counter-example, a country where Corbyn-style policies have worked well?
Bernie Sanders used Denmark as an example for his campaign.Democratic Socialism .He seemed to be onto something .
Ha! Denmark! That loony-left country where they, err, ran a budget surplus for years, and where the finance minister apologised to voters for the fact that the 2008/9 crisis pushed them into a small deficit, and where they've been busy privatising for years (not that they had a particularly high proportion of nationalised industries in the first place).
Denmark is indeed a good example of a centre-left social democratic country, such as perhaps Blair or Alastair Darling might want to emulate, with higher taxes and higher spending than us but with sound finances, and a pro-private business mindset. It's not an advert for Corbynomics, though. The sad thing is that Labour could be proposing a Denmark-style model, but chooses not to.
I did say I thought Denmark was in my opinion Social Democratic .From an American perspective it is socialist, as is our Marxist NHS.I would prefer that Labour were proposing a Denmark style model.
My understanding is that the water sector in Denmark is exclusively run by public utilities/cooperatives, that their energy is provided predominantly by local cooperatives and mutuals (with a very high share of renewables) and that their railways are publicly owned.
Sounds like a Corbyn agenda to me.
I think Danish tax rates are much higher than what Corbyn is proposing though.
Thanks I was not aware of their water sector and utilities .To be fair that element does sound like a Corbyn agenda.
Mr. Dawning, the first of those is irrelevant to the CU, and the last existed decades ago and is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, humans leaving a swimming pool are chlorinated and somehow manage to survive.
With chlorinated chicken, the issue is not is chlorinated chicken safe?, to which the answer is an unambiguous yes.
But, should British farmers be held to a higher standard of food safety (and therefore costs), than competitors?
Rephrased as - should British consumers continue to enjoy higher standards of food safety than Americans?
Would customs Union keep out chlorinated chicken? If so I am sold..
I don't know. As a simplification I think the single market is to do with common standards and level playing field and customs union is to do with common tariffs. But that may be an over simplification. Perhaps an expert on here could clarify?
If we remained in _the_ customs union, we'd be bound by EU FTAs. So, for example, if TTIP were resurrected, and chlorinated chicken (let's deem it symbolic of 'lower food standards') were part of that FTA, then we'd be able to buy it, if the market existed.
Strictly speaking, i.e. As far as the WTO is concerned, a customs union is purely a shared tariff. Product regulation would be a Single Market issue. Keeping the EU FTAs would be GREAT. There is essentially no chance of replicating them soon or to the same standard later.
That's what I thought. We need to be in the single market AND in the customs union AND preserve the EU FTAs. What are we waiting for? MPs -just do it. Take back control. That's what we voted for.
Make your mind up. You didn't recognise the legitimacy of the result over the weekend.
Though of course there is no control in being a vassal state*.
I have been well disposed as you put it towards Labour all my life. I voted Labour at every election since Harold Wilson was leader in the 70s.
The current Labour leadership is at best Citizen Smith incompetent, and at worst thoroughly nasty. We have a shadow chancellor who thinks its ok to threaten to lynch women, a hopeless leader and if anyone thinks Diane Abbott is the dream home secretary, they must be insane. Militant is taking over the Party with a new name, antisemitism is rife, there is massive online intimidation against moderates, Corbyn supporters are creating a Cult of Personality with songs and poems to the Leader that we have not seen since Stalin, and Labour has just lost a general election with about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010, and is currently three points behind the Tories and heading for a fourth defeat.
Some of us are crying out for decent leadership in the Labour party -which is the cue for people like you to accuse me of being a Blairite or Tory because thats the only answer you can think of.
Your contempt for Corbyn is well known here and shared by many. I don't know the inner workings of the Labour Party so I can't argue with your view though Nick Palmer doesn't seem to be as concerned as you but that's his business.
I'm not going to call you a Blairite or a Tory. Harold Wilson ran and won on a centrist agenda in 1964 and also because he offered a modern vision for Britain entering a new technological age.
I also think however you crunch statistics, calling the next election for the Conservatives is a bold move - you may be right, you may not.
I agree with that entirely. Moreover, this contributor has never tried to explain why Labour is now performing better under Corbyn than it managed to do under Gaitskell back in 1960 & 1961!
Or how he voted in GE2017!!
Or how many times he has underestimated Corbyn so far!!
What is the end game of endless Remainer-moaning about every single proposed solution?
Is it to prevent Brexit?
Is it to delay Brexit?
Is it just to 'prove' 'superiority' of the Remainer world view?
Is it inability to accept the fact that we're leaving the EU, SM and CU....?
Inquiring minds want to know.
It's because they have a house in Tuscany.
Whatever it is, it dispels the other espoused view that 'Leavers need to get on with Brexit'.
Very difficult to get on with it when there is a continual drone preventing progress...
Leavers need to start taking responsibility for their own inadequacies. The caterwauling when it was suggested before the referendum vote that Brexit might be difficult and painful was more discordant than rutting cats. Now that reality has bit and the many difficulties are causing angst, they cast about wildly for others to blame. But they need to start looking in the mirror.
The only inadequacy that many of us are trying to overturn is that the birthright of determination over our own laws was surrendered by Europhiles and Declinists.
A constitutional inadequacy.
I wonder why so many prominent Europhiles are resisting?
When were you born? How are you defining ‘our own’? Were the Acts of Union a betrayal of your birthright?
What is the end game of endless Remainer-moaning about every single proposed solution?
Is it to prevent Brexit?
Is it to delay Brexit?
Is it just to 'prove' 'superiority' of the Remainer world view?
Is it inability to accept the fact that we're leaving the EU, SM and CU....?
Inquiring minds want to know.
It's because they have a house in Tuscany.
Whatever it is, it dispels the other espoused view that 'Leavers need to get on with Brexit'.
Very difficult to get on with it when there is a continual drone preventing progress...
Leavers need to start taking responsibility for their own inadequacies. The caterwauling when it was suggested before the referendum vote that Brexit might be difficult and painful was more discordant than rutting cats. Now that reality has bit and the many difficulties are causing angst, they cast about wildly for others to blame. But they need to start looking in the mirror.
The only inadequacy that many of us are trying to overturn is that the birthright of determination over our own laws was surrendered by Europhiles and Declinists.
A constitutional inadequacy.
I wonder why so many prominent Europhiles are resisting?
When were you born? How are you defining ‘our own’? Were the Acts of Union a betrayal of your birthright?
The Acts of Union happened before anyone currently living was born.
You don't need a degree in History to work that out.
Mr. Dawning, the first of those is irrelevant to the CU, and the last existed decades ago and is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, humans leaving a swimming pool are chlorinated and somehow manage to survive.
With chlorinated chicken, the issue is not is chlorinated chicken safe?, to which the answer is an unambiguous yes.
But, should British farmers be held to a higher standard of food safety (and therefore costs), than competitors?
Rephrased as - should British consumers continue to enjoy higher standards of food safety than Americans?
Would customs Union keep out chlorinated chicken? If so I am sold..
I don't know. As a simplification I think the single market is to do with common standards and level playing field and customs union is to do with common tariffs. But that may be an over simplification. Perhaps an expert on here could clarify?
If we remained in _the_ customs union, we'd be bound by EU FTAs. So, for example, if TTIP were resurrected, and chlorinated chicken (let's deem it symbolic of 'lower food standards') were part of that FTA, then we'd be able to buy it, if the market existed.
Strictly speaking, i.e. As far as the WTO is concerned, a customs union is purely a shared tariff. Product regulation would be a Single Market issue. Keeping the EU FTAs would be GREAT. There is essentially no chance of replicating them soon or to the same standard later.
That's what I thought. We need to be in the single market AND in the customs union AND preserve the EU FTAs. What are we waiting for? MPs -just do it. Take back control. That's what we voted for.
Make your mind up. You didn't recognise the legitimacy of the result over the weekend.
I want MPs to take back control on our behalf from this incompetent government, revoke A50 and stay in the single market AND in the customs union AND preserve the EU FTAs. What are we waiting for? MPs -just do it. Take back control. That's what we vote for.
Mr. Dawning, the first of those is irrelevant to the CU, and the last existed decades ago and is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, humans leaving a swimming pool are chlorinated and somehow manage to survive.
With chlorinated chicken, the issue is not is chlorinated chicken safe?, to which the answer is an unambiguous yes.
But, should British farmers be held to a higher standard of food safety (and therefore costs), than competitors?
Rephrased as - should British consumers continue to enjoy higher standards of food safety than Americans?
Would customs Union keep out chlorinated chicken? If so I am sold..
I don't know. As a simplification I think the single market is to do with common standards and level playing field and customs union is to do with common tariffs. But that may be an over simplification. Perhaps an expert on here could clarify?
If we remained in _the_ customs union, we'd be bound by EU FTAs. So, for example, if TTIP were resurrected, and chlorinated chicken (let's deem it symbolic of 'lower food standards') were part of that FTA, then we'd be able to buy it, if the market existed.
Strictly speaking, i.e. As far as the WTO is concerned, a customs union is purely a shared tariff. Product regulation would be a Single Market issue. Keeping the EU FTAs would be GREAT. There is essentially no chance of replicating them soon or to the same standard later.
That's what I thought. We need to be in the single market AND in the customs union AND preserve the EU FTAs. What are we waiting for? MPs -just do it. Take back control. That's what we voted for.
Make your mind up. You didn't recognise the legitimacy of the result over the weekend.
I want MPs to take back control on our behalf from this incompetent government, revoke A50 and stay in the single market AND in the customs union AND preserve the EU FTAs. What are we waiting for? MPs -just do it. Take back control. That's what we vote for.
Unspoofable. How many MPs were elected with manifesto pledges to leave the EU?
What is the end game of endless Remainer-moaning about every single proposed solution?
Is it to prevent Brexit?
Is it to delay Brexit?
Is it just to 'prove' 'superiority' of the Remainer world view?
Is it inability to accept the fact that we're leaving the EU, SM and CU....?
Inquiring minds want to know.
It's because they have a house in Tuscany.
Whatever it is, it dispels the other espoused view that 'Leavers need to get on with Brexit'.
Very difficult to get on with it when there is a continual drone preventing progress...
Leavers need to start taking responsibility for their own inadequacies. The caterwauling when it was suggested before the referendum vote that Brexit might be difficult and painful was more discordant than rutting cats. Now that reality has bit and the many difficulties are causing angst, they cast about wildly for others to blame. But they need to start looking in the mirror.
The only inadequacy that many of us are trying to overturn is that the birthright of determination over our own laws was surrendered by Europhiles and Declinists.
A constitutional inadequacy.
I wonder why so many prominent Europhiles are resisting?
When were you born? How are you defining ‘our own’? Were the Acts of Union a betrayal of your birthright?
The Acts of Union happened before anyone currently living was born.
You don't need a degree in History to work that out.
And was the European Communities Act before you were born? You didn’t answer my questions.
What is the end game of endless Remainer-moaning about every single proposed solution?
Is it to prevent Brexit?
Is it to delay Brexit?
Is it just to 'prove' 'superiority' of the Remainer world view?
Is it inability to accept the fact that we're leaving the EU, SM and CU....?
Inquiring minds want to know.
It's because they have a house in Tuscany.
Whatever it is, it dispels the other espoused view that 'Leavers need to get on with Brexit'.
Very difficult to get on with it when there is a continual drone preventing progress...
Leavers need to start taking responsibility for their own inadequacies. The caterwauling when it was suggested before the referendum vote that Brexit might be difficult and painful was more discordant than rutting cats. Now that reality has bit and the many difficulties are causing angst, they cast about wildly for others to blame. But they need to start looking in the mirror.
The only inadequacy that many of us are trying to overturn is that the birthright of determination over our own laws was surrendered by Europhiles and Declinists.
A constitutional inadequacy.
I wonder why so many prominent Europhiles are resisting?
When were you born? How are you defining ‘our own’? Were the Acts of Union a betrayal of your birthright?
The Acts of Union happened before anyone currently living was born.
You don't need a degree in History to work that out.
And was the European Communities Act before you were born? You didn’t answer my questions.
What is the end game of endless Remainer-moaning about every single proposed solution?
Is it to prevent Brexit?
Is it to delay Brexit?
Is it just to 'prove' 'superiority' of the Remainer world view?
Is it inability to accept the fact that we're leaving the EU, SM and CU....?
Inquiring minds want to know.
It's because they have a house in Tuscany.
Whatever it is, it dispels the other espoused view that 'Leavers need to get on with Brexit'.
Very difficult to get on with it when there is a continual drone preventing progress...
Leavers need to start taking responsibility for their own inadequacies. The caterwauling when it was suggested before the referendum vote that Brexit might be difficult and painful was more discordant than rutting cats. Now that reality has bit and the many difficulties are causing angst, they cast about wildly for others to blame. But they need to start looking in the mirror.
The only inadequacy that many of us are trying to overturn is that the birthright of determination over our own laws was surrendered by Europhiles and Declinists.
A constitutional inadequacy.
I wonder why so many prominent Europhiles are resisting?
When were you born? How are you defining ‘our own’? Were the Acts of Union a betrayal of your birthright?
The Acts of Union happened before anyone currently living was born.
You don't need a degree in History to work that out.
And was the European Communities Act before you were born? You didn’t answer my questions.
I must have missed your answer to my question the other day, btw, what will be the line in the sand for you? What will signal to you that were actually leaving?
C4 News on Oxfam: it's not looking good for Mark ...
Seems pretty bad.
The allegations about aid workers coercing women into sex in return for aid are far worse than the Haiti business. And email evidence that Mark Goldring was made aware of this in 2014 leads me to conclude that he's not going to be able to survive.
What is the end game of endless Remainer-moaning about every single proposed solution?
Is it to prevent Brexit?
Is it to delay Brexit?
Is it just to 'prove' 'superiority' of the Remainer world view?
Is it inability to accept the fact that we're leaving the EU, SM and CU....?
Inquiring minds want to know.
It's because they have a house in Tuscany.
Whatever it is, it dispels the other espoused view that 'Leavers need to get on with Brexit'.
Very difficult to get on with it when there is a continual drone preventing progress...
Leavers need to start taking responsibility for their own inadequacies. The caterwauling when it was suggested before the referendum vote that Brexit might be difficult and painful was more discordant than rutting cats. Now that reality has bit and the many difficulties are causing angst, they cast about wildly for others to blame. But they need to start looking in the mirror.
The only inadequacy that many of us are trying to overturn is that the birthright of determination over our own laws was surrendered by Europhiles and Declinists.
A constitutional inadequacy.
I wonder why so many prominent Europhiles are resisting?
When were you born? How are you defining ‘our own’? Were the Acts of Union a betrayal of your birthright?
The Acts of Union happened before anyone currently living was born.
You don't need a degree in History to work that out.
And was the European Communities Act before you were born? You didn’t answer my questions.
I must have missed your answer to my question the other day, btw, what will be the line in the sand for you? What will signal to you that were actually leaving?
If the A50 deal is ratified, but that would only mean we’re heading into transition.
What is the end game of endless Remainer-moaning about every single proposed solution?
Is it to prevent Brexit?
Is it to delay Brexit?
Is it just to 'prove' 'superiority' of the Remainer world view?
Is it inability to accept the fact that we're leaving the EU, SM and CU....?
Inquiring minds want to know.
It's because they have a house in Tuscany.
Whatever it is, it dispels the other espoused view that 'Leavers need to get on with Brexit'.
Very difficult to get on with it when there is a continual drone preventing progress...
Leavers need to start taking responsibility for their own inadequacies. The caterwauling when it was suggested before the referendum vote that Brexit might be difficult and painful was more discordant than rutting cats. Now that reality has bit and the many difficulties are causing angst, they cast about wildly for others to blame. But they need to start looking in the mirror.
The only inadequacy that many of us are trying to overturn is that the birthright of determination over our own laws was surrendered by Europhiles and Declinists.
A constitutional inadequacy.
I wonder why so many prominent Europhiles are resisting?
When were you born? How are you defining ‘our own’? Were the Acts of Union a betrayal of your birthright?
The Acts of Union happened before anyone currently living was born.
You don't need a degree in History to work that out.
And was the European Communities Act before you were born? You didn’t answer my questions.
And did the ECA remove our veto? Err, no.
So which precise event do you claim betrayed your birthright? And if your birthright was to live within a community of European nations with a common legal framework, why does Brexit not betray it?
What is the end game of endless Remainer-moaning about every single proposed solution?
Is it to prevent Brexit?
Is it to delay Brexit?
Is it just to 'prove' 'superiority' of the Remainer world view?
Is it inability to accept the fact that we're leaving the EU, SM and CU....?
Inquiring minds want to know.
It's because they have a house in Tuscany.
Whatever it is, it dispels the other espoused view that 'Leavers need to get on with Brexit'.
Very difficult to get on with it when there is a continual drone preventing progress...
Leavers need to start taking responsibility for their own inadequacies. The caterwauling when it was suggested before the referendum vote that Brexit might be difficult and painful was more discordant than rutting cats. Now that reality has bit and the many difficulties are causing angst, they cast about wildly for others to blame. But they need to start looking in the mirror.
The only inadequacy that many of us are trying to overturn is that the birthright of determination over our own laws was surrendered by Europhiles and Declinists.
A constitutional inadequacy.
I wonder why so many prominent Europhiles are resisting?
When were you born? How are you defining ‘our own’? Were the Acts of Union a betrayal of your birthright?
The Acts of Union happened before anyone currently living was born.
You don't need a degree in History to work that out.
And was the European Communities Act before you were born? You didn’t answer my questions.
I must have missed your answer to my question the other day, btw, what will be the line in the sand for you? What will signal to you that were actually leaving?
If the A50 deal is ratified, but that would only mean we’re heading into transition.
By Parliament? Fair enough.
Ta for answering. You're the only person I speak to about this that doesn't think we're leaving.
C4 News on Oxfam: it's not looking good for Mark ...
Seems pretty bad.
The allegations about aid workers coercing women into sex in return for aid are far worse than the Haiti business.
Good grief - really? Absolutely dreadful. That has escalated quickly..
There are also allegations about sexual exploitation of minors in Oxfam shops. And the Oxfam hierarchy appear to have been taking advice from the Catholic Church on how to deal with such episodes.
What is the end game of endless Remainer-moaning about every single proposed solution?
Is it to prevent Brexit?
Is it to delay Brexit?
Is it just to 'prove' 'superiority' of the Remainer world view?
Is it inability to accept the fact that we're leaving the EU, SM and CU....?
Inquiring minds want to know.
It's because they have a house in Tuscany.
Whatever it is, it dispels the other espoused view that 'Leavers need to get on with Brexit'.
Very difficult to get on with it when there is a continual drone preventing progress...
Leavers need to start taking responsibility for their own inadequacies. The caterwauling when it was suggested before the referendum vote that Brexit might be difficult and painful was more discordant than rutting cats. Now that reality has bit and the many difficulties are causing angst, they cast about wildly for others to blame. But they need to start looking in the mirror.
The only inadequacy that many of us are trying to overturn is that the birthright of determination over our own laws was surrendered by Europhiles and Declinists.
A constitutional inadequacy.
I wonder why so many prominent Europhiles are resisting?
When were you born? How are you defining ‘our own’? Were the Acts of Union a betrayal of your birthright?
The Acts of Union happened before anyone currently living was born.
You don't need a degree in History to work that out.
And was the European Communities Act before you were born? You didn’t answer my questions.
And did the ECA remove our veto? Err, no.
So which precise event do you claim betrayed your birthright? And if your birthright was to live within a community of European nations with a common legal framework, why does Brexit not betray it?
The Lisbon Treaty. Inability to prevent laws in whole swathes of areas being handed down by the Commission/Parliament.
I'm sure there are things Labour could be doing better - I definitely think that at some point soon, they've got to get off of the Brexit fence.
The British Social Attitudes Survey does suggest however they are on the popular side of the public services/taxes divide:
"There are signs of a reaction against the fiscal discipline of recent years, 48% now say the government should increase taxes and spend more, a higher proportion than at any point during the last 10 years."
Yes, I would have thought that at some point Labour have to pivot to a more stridently anti-Brexit position. They could do this under Corbyn, but rather more easily under a new Leader such as Starmer or Thornbury.
Timing is of the essence, of course, and they may be right in letting things run a bit more before adopting the full-teapot posture but I don't think they should risk leaving it too long. That would invite the question 'why didn't you speak up sooner?' and that would never do.
I'd give it a few more months, no more.
Labour should say that they'd negotiate full access to the Customs Union. That would solve three problems in a trice:
Freedom of movement (we still wouldn't be subject to it). Northern Ireland border. Chlorinated chicken.
The grim irony (for the Tories) is that business would be happy with that, but Theresa dare not go there for fear of the Dream Team.
'Full access to the Customs union' doesn't mean what you think it means.
The world has full access to the Customs union, providing their products meet standards.
What do you think I think it means?
Well, for a start, you said it would solve the NI border - it wouldn't.
What would solve the NI border problem?
Ireland reverting to the default position pre-Varadkar; working together on a technological solution.
I'm sure there are things Labour could be doing better - I definitely think that at some point soon, they've got to get off of the Brexit fence.
The British Social Attitudes Survey does suggest however they are on the popular side of the public services/taxes divide:
"There are signs of a reaction against the fiscal discipline of recent years, 48% now say the government should increase taxes and spend more, a higher proportion than at any point during the last 10 years."
Yes, I would have thought that at some point Labour have to pivot to a more stridently anti-Brexit position. They could do this under Corbyn, but rather more easily under a new Leader such as Starmer or Thornbury.
Timing is of the essence, of course, and they may be right in letting things run a bit more before adopting the full-teapot posture but I don't think they should risk leaving it too long. That would invite the question 'why didn't you speak up sooner?' and that would never do.
I'd give it a few more months, no more.
Labour should say that they'd negotiate full access to the Customs Union. That would solve three problems in a trice:
Freedom of movement (we still wouldn't be subject to it). Northern Ireland border. Chlorinated chicken.
The grim irony (for the Tories) is that business would be happy with that, but Theresa dare not go there for fear of the Dream Team.
'Full access to the Customs union' doesn't mean what you think it means.
The world has full access to the Customs union, providing their products meet standards.
What do you think I think it means?
Well, for a start, you said it would solve the NI border - it wouldn't.
What would solve the NI border problem?
Ireland reverting to the default position pre-Varadkar; working together on a technological solution.
It's rare these days but I do agree with young @Topping. Economic arguments have lost their sting. The Tories have already trashed the public purse, another few hundred billion is neither here nor there. I exaggerate for effect, but really, given the size of our national debt and our continuing deficit spending, can the Tories really go hard on Labours economic plans? At least Labour have a vision.
What choice is there but to go hard on Labour's economic 'plans' (if that's not too strong a word)? If voters choose to ignore basic common sense and all known examples from history, so be it, but we should at least warn them.
They've already done that once with Brexit. The Brexiteers actively discourage any kind of economic prediction. Warnings are not going to sound particularly convincing when Leavers finally get around to doing anything other than frotting themselves into a stupor over Brexit.
There are plenty of people who are not Leavers who are genuinely worried about the prospect of a Corbyn government. Especially if it follows on from a f**ked up Brexit. As seems likely.
It occurs to me that the reason Labour and Conservative are not fighting much over actual policy is that both are devoting most of their energy to internal feuds. The Tories are so fissile over Brexit the only way to keep them in one party is not to announce any actual Brexit policy.
Labour's winning faction is still digesting the defeated Blairites; the leftwing objection to freedom of movement, that it allows capitalists to source labour from the cheapest place, is making Corbyn slow to make Eurofriendly moves. But until we know what May is proposing it's a bit hard for Labour to oppose it.
Other EU nations looking on must despair that we are unable to do any sensible negotiating for squabbling.
It's rare these days but I do agree with young @Topping. Economic arguments have lost their sting. The Tories have already trashed the public purse, another few hundred billion is neither here nor there. I exaggerate for effect, but really, given the size of our national debt and our continuing deficit spending, can the Tories really go hard on Labours economic plans? At least Labour have a vision.
What choice is there but to go hard on Labour's economic 'plans' (if that's not too strong a word)? If voters choose to ignore basic common sense and all known examples from history, so be it, but we should at least warn them.
They've already done that once with Brexit. The Brexiteers actively discourage any kind of economic prediction. Warnings are not going to sound particularly convincing when Leavers finally get around to doing anything other than frotting themselves into a stupor over Brexit.
There are plenty of people who are not Leavers who are genuinely worried about the prospect of a Corbyn government. Especially if it follows on from a f**ked up Brexit. As seems likely.
Me for a start!
Good luck with your new venture. Teaching bankers not to be fuckwits sounds like the Labour of Sisyphus but I suppose it should at least guarantee lifelong employment!
I'm sure there are things Labour could be doing better - I definitely think that at some point soon, they've got to get off of the Brexit fence.
The British Social Attitudes Survey does suggest however they are on the popular side of the public services/taxes divide:
"There are signs of a reaction against the fiscal discipline of recent years, 48% now say the government should increase taxes and spend more, a higher proportion than at any point during the last 10 years."
Yes, I would have thought that at some point Labour have to pivot to a more stridently anti-Brexit position. They could do this under Corbyn, but rather more easily under a new Leader such as Starmer or Thornbury.
Timing is of the essence, of course, and they may be right in letting things run a bit more before adopting the full-teapot posture but I don't think they should risk leaving it too long. That would invite the question 'why didn't you speak up sooner?' and that would never do.
I'd give it a few more months, no more.
Labour should say that they'd negotiate full access to the Customs Union. That would solve three problems in a trice:
Freedom of movement (we still wouldn't be subject to it). Northern Ireland border. Chlorinated chicken.
The grim irony (for the Tories) is that business would be happy with that, but Theresa dare not go there for fear of the Dream Team.
'Full access to the Customs union' doesn't mean what you think it means.
The world has full access to the Customs union, providing their products meet standards.
What do you think I think it means?
Well, for a start, you said it would solve the NI border - it wouldn't.
What would solve the NI border problem?
Ireland reverting to the default position pre-Varadkar; working together on a technological solution.
It should't take an "independent" Inquiry by a Labour supporter / Labour peer in waiting to root out these creatures
Instead your party might at a push suspend them and then let them back after a couple of months and hell, some get to share a platform with your dear leader.
It's rare these days but I do agree with young @Topping. Economic arguments have lost their sting. The Tories have already trashed the public purse, another few hundred billion is neither here nor there. I exaggerate for effect, but really, given the size of our national debt and our continuing deficit spending, can the Tories really go hard on Labours economic plans? At least Labour have a vision.
What choice is there but to go hard on Labour's economic 'plans' (if that's not too strong a word)? If voters choose to ignore basic common sense and all known examples from history, so be it, but we should at least warn them.
They've already done that once with Brexit. The Brexiteers actively discourage any kind of economic prediction. Warnings are not going to sound particularly convincing when Leavers finally get around to doing anything other than frotting themselves into a stupor over Brexit.
There are plenty of people who are not Leavers who are genuinely worried about the prospect of a Corbyn government. Especially if it follows on from a f**ked up Brexit. As seems likely.
Me for a start!
Good luck with your new venture. Teaching bankers not to be fuckwits sounds like the Labour of Sisyphus but I suppose it should at least guarantee lifelong employment!
Well investigating their fuckwittery has kept me in employment so far. And there seems no end to the number of fuckwits out there. But I need fuckwits who will pay, and pay me, in particular.
Honestly, we women always have to clean up after men and tell them off too...... Is there no end to our labours?
Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.
>40% of Tory voters support nationalising Royal Mail, railway companies and water companies. I'll admit that finding surprised me too!
Labour's proposed nationalisations are favoured by the general public according to the polling.
Ask them this: if there are billions of pounds going to be borrowed would you a) spend it on renationalising water, rail, Royal Mail or b) the NHS?
Their answer would probably be to invest in renationalising those industries, and use the vast and unending profits not only to pay off the debt, but also to invest in the NHS.
Besides, the Magic Money Tree always gives. Why not do both?
Given that in the last 7 odd years only £13bn has been paid in dividends by the water companies that Magic Money Tree is looking a little weedy.
Water should never ever be in the hands of private companies. We have great water supply and much lower bills.
You have excess water in Scotland...
We have an excess of midges in Scotland, if anyone wants a couple of million or so, just let me know....
You should farm them. Insect protein steak will be the staple food of the 2030s...
You obviously have no appreciation of the size of a Scottish midge. That million or so referred to would make about 10% of an economy cocktail sausage
But they are so lovely and cuddly, are you sure you wouldn't like more, I'm sure we can spare them.....
Comments
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/taoiseach-made-it-clear-to-britain-border-to-have-no-customs-posts-1.2992926
Mr Kenny insisted. “This is not a technological issue. It is a political issue.”
'Mr Kenny said the Government had not directed officials to go looking at sites for the possibility that they would need large car parks or sites for lorries.'
So, there was no plan for a hard border at all. But equally no threats of derailing the Brexit talks.
Sounds like a Corbyn agenda to me.
I think Danish tax rates are much higher than what Corbyn is proposing though.
https://tinyurl.com/y8oj2goq
This is an opportunity for Jezza, but I doubt he'll take it. As well as arguing for more funding for the police, he'd do his cause some good if he was to say that the police also needed to stop pissing our money up the wall on stuff like this.
The Irish position is entirely logical. It's based around identity. But Leavers don't accept that anyone else can have identity concerns. Leavers are to be allowed to indulge their own insular prejudices and others are expected to play along with those.
The new, improved Irish Govt position is ridiculous. If you don't avoid a hard border, we'll pull the plug and ensure a hard border.
Furthermore, the UK position is that we'd have a Free Trade Agreement with the EU. So the problem goes away anyway. You can have a FTA without a Customs Union.
Is it to prevent Brexit?
Is it to delay Brexit?
Is it just to 'prove' 'superiority' of the Remainer world view?
Is it inability to accept the fact that we're leaving the EU, SM and CU....?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I suspect just as Mauroy in France and Heath in Britain, Corbyn and McDonnell would start trying to be radical but would backtrack under pressure and become more centrist. Heath threw the "Selsdon Man" manifesto under the bus in the face of Union pressure and I suspect Corbyn will face a financial crisis within 24 months of coming into Government which will force a change of tack.
It would hardly be surprising to McDonnell if there wasn't an adverse market reaction to his policies and equally hardly surprising he's looking at how to respond.
The EU isn't a country.
Britain might not have border posts but would the EU insist Ireland had border posts in those circumstamces ?
Very difficult to get on with it when there is a continual drone preventing progress...
As a LEAVE voter, I want an A50 that works for both us and the EU as an ideal. I'd much prefer that to one that works for the Conservative Party rather than the country.
Sun all the way today in the south.
A good couple of sets of tennis in the open air.
If only others followed his _constructive_ example...
However, I'm genuinely surprised by the indecent haste with which we seem to be racing off to some magical bespoke deal. Given that we've had thirty-odd years of the Single Market, it would make sense to undock in a gradual fashion (I await William's inevitable comment!).
Choose one.
Hint: If you choose B, it doesn't strengthen the case for remain, or the EU in general. The more difficult it is to leave, the more it proves the case that our sovereignty has been lost.
A constitutional inadequacy.
I wonder why so many prominent Europhiles are resisting?
My concern is 20 months after the vote and nearly 12 months after A50 was initiated, I am still struggling to define the Government's position. I appreciate it's a negotiation but it's not the Magical Mystery Tour and some sense of the destination would be nice.
I appreciate the political dimension and May's need to hold the Conservative Party and how helpful the lack of a coherent direction is in hampering the Opposition but none of that is relevant to me.
I am told by HYUFD that all May wants is a Free Trade Agreement with the EU - sounds simple which probably means it isn't. We've paid some amount for that - 60 billion euros perhaps, no one is willing to say.
Thus all we have is the drip-drip of rumour and occasional briefing papers - little surprise questions are asked, equally little surprise answers aren't forthcoming.
Though of course there is no control in being a vassal state*.
*Remaining in the Customs union ensures that.
Or how many times he has underestimated Corbyn so far!!
You don't need a degree in History to work that out.
Ta for answering. You're the only person I speak to about this that doesn't think we're leaving.
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/963106772541149184
Labour's winning faction is still digesting the defeated Blairites; the leftwing objection to freedom of movement, that it allows capitalists to source labour from the cheapest place, is making Corbyn slow to make Eurofriendly moves. But until we know what May is proposing it's a bit hard for Labour to oppose it.
Other EU nations looking on must despair that we are unable to do any sensible negotiating for squabbling.
Good luck with your new venture. Teaching bankers not to be fuckwits sounds like the Labour of Sisyphus but I suppose it should at least guarantee lifelong employment!
That is something your party could be doing
It should't take an "independent" Inquiry by a Labour supporter / Labour peer in waiting to root out these creatures
Instead your party might at a push suspend them and then let them back after a couple of months and hell, some get to share a platform with your dear leader.
Honestly, we women always have to clean up after men and tell them off too...... Is there no end to our labours?
.....**runs and hides**.....
Yes - he's working his way through Cyclefree's 10 Stages of a Crisis. I may use him as an example in my next presentation.