She is the Brexit PM but her indecision and lack of communication skills will see her succeeded
In some respects Mrs May's anxious search for a consensus and tendency towards procrastination is quite suitable for Brexit and will help the deal emerge in a reasonable enough fashion in due course. What concerns me about her is that the same traits mean that the government is making pitiful progress in all the other, much more serious, issues that it faces.
Yesterday was a good example. Her analysis of the problems caused by the student loan system was reasonable and candid, not seeking to hide the role her own party had in the creation of the mess. But there was a total lack of leadership or ideas of how to resolve it. Instead we are having yet another review, delegating the task of finding some sort of solution to someone else, albeit within restricted financial parameters which will make their task pretty much impossible.
And then we have this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43121642 The new apprenticeships which she has sought to promote as a part of the solution are really struggling, being seriously underfunded and more than a bit patchwork. And yet they should be key to our economic future and productivity issues.
I fear that the old cliché of being in office but not in power is applicable. Time is a wasting and there are so many concerns to be addressed: education funding, training, housing, social care, a drug epidemic, the horrendous consequences of care in the community/neglect, our transport infrastructure, the facilitating of new industries...the list is almost endless. Whilst it is convenient for Brexit I am really not sure that we can continue to mark time like this.
If most people aspire to go to university, the State won't pay the costs, so students have fund it themselves, but it is too expensive, there is only one solution. The cost of that provision has to be slashed. That requires a root and branch reform of the university system so they become efficient education factories. That's not something you can change with a stroke of the pen.
If the UK doesn't want a hard border and the Irish don't want a hard border, and the UK and the Irish are comfy with localised trade crossing the border unchecked, what's the problem?
She is the Brexit PM but her indecision and lack of communication skills will see her succeeded
In some respects Mrs May's anxious search for a consensus and tendency towards procrastination is quite suitable for Brexit and will help the deal emerge in a reasonable enough fashion in due course. What concerns me about her is that the same traits mean that the government is making pitiful progress in all the other, much more serious, issues that it faces.
Yesterday was a good example. Her analysis of the problems caused by the student loan system was reasonable and candid, not seeking to hide the role her own party had in the creation of the mess. But there was a total lack of leadership or ideas of how to resolve it. Instead we are having yet another review, delegating the task of finding some sort of solution to someone else, albeit within restricted financial parameters which will make their task pretty much impossible.
And then we have this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43121642 The new apprenticeships which she has sought to promote as a part of the solution are really struggling, being seriously underfunded and more than a bit patchwork. And yet they should be key to our economic future and productivity issues.
I fear that the old cliché of being in office but not in power is applicable. Time is a wasting and there are so many concerns to be addressed: education funding, training, housing, social care, a drug epidemic, the horrendous consequences of care in the community/neglect, our transport infrastructure, the facilitating of new industries...the list is almost endless. Whilst it is convenient for Brexit I am really not sure that we can continue to mark time like this.
I think we both agree it is not sustainable beyond next Spring
Mandelson:
"I have been part of three university finance reviews under two prime ministers: the third I initiated myself when I was Labour’s last universities minister in 2009. If there were any radical solutions to sustaining a lower-cost, world-standard higher education on offer that could charge students substantially less, they would have been found by now."
It is time for me to express my view on Brexit and TM. I despise everything Brexit is doing to our Country with such hatred and intolerance on both sides of the argument and the obvious maneuverings by very powerful people both in the EU and this Country to try and frustrate the vote.
I am conflicted as I would like to have stayed in the EU but not the EU of Junckers and the federalists but I would also like to be a free trading Nation not hindered by an unelected Euro elite in Brussels.
I am of the opinion the only way to lance the boil is to exit the EU and review attitudes once we have had a period as an Independent Country. Any successful attempt to keep us in Europe through the single market or customs union would create a chasm so large in our politics I doubt we would get over it in a generation.
AS far as TM is concerned she is hopeless at decision making and for that reason she has to go by Mid 2019. Yesterday's speech on tuition fees and Universities identified so many important issues but then she kicked it into the long grass with a one year review. This cannot go on beyond Spring 2019 and if she is still in power by then even I would send in a letter to Graham Brady, even though I am only a humble member.
As for her successor most of the candidates are white, pale and stale, and it must come from the new intake and probably another female.
This honesty may surprise some who have identified me as a TM apparatchik, but I am not, and I am saddened that she has not proved to be the leader that this Country so richly deserves.
And as for Corbyn I cannot find words to express my contempt for his politics.
We are in a really difficult place as a Country and how this pans out over the next couple of years no one, and I mean no one, can predict
Console yourself with the fact that out here in the real world, no-one really cares. I see the word BREXIT written on nearly every comment here and constantly on Twitter but I can't remember the last time I ever heard it spoken out loud. And I work all round the country. Business is going well and life is normal. Only political obsessives obsess about it. I can guarantee that there'll be eventually be a fudge, an agreement, some more fudge and more agreement and ad infinitum.
As long as Corbyn doesn't get his hands on power the country will be okay.
I agree your last sentence is key to the Country's future
It is but many used the same tactic with Milliband Kinnock and even Blair .If you always call the Labour leader in opposition a danger to the country, it loses its potency.
She is the Brexit PM but her indecision and lack of communication skills will see her succeeded
In some respects Mrs May's anxious search for a consensus and tendency towards procrastination is quite suitable for Brexit and will help the deal emerge in a reasonable enough fashion in due course. What concerns me about her is that the same traits mean that the government is making pitiful progress in all the other, much more serious, issues that it faces.
Yesterday was a good example. Her analysis of the problems caused by the student loan system was reasonable and candid, not seeking to hide the role her own party had in the creation of the mess. But there was a total lack of leadership or ideas of how to resolve it. Instead we are having yet another review, delegating the task of finding some sort of solution to someone else, albeit within restricted financial parameters which will make their task pretty much impossible.
And then we have this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43121642 The new apprenticeships which she has sought to promote as a part of the solution are really struggling, being seriously underfunded and more than a bit patchwork. And yet they should be key to our economic future and productivity issues.
I fear that the old cliché of being in office but not in power is applicable. Time is a wasting and there are so many concerns to be addressed: education funding, training, housing, social care, a drug epidemic, the horrendous consequences of care in the community/neglect, our transport infrastructure, the facilitating of new industries...the list is almost endless. Whilst it is convenient for Brexit I am really not sure that we can continue to mark time like this.
I think we both agree it is not sustainable beyond next Spring
Mandelson:
"I have been part of three university finance reviews under two prime ministers: the third I initiated myself when I was Labour’s last universities minister in 2009. If there were any radical solutions to sustaining a lower-cost, world-standard higher education on offer that could charge students substantially less, they would have been found by now."
It needs a huge move away from 50% target and investment in vocational training. It also needs the introduction of two year degree courses, re-introduction of grants and many more bursaries.
The point I make is a one year review is too long - the need is urgent
It is time for me to express my view on Brexit and TM. I despise everything Brexit is doing to our Country with such hatred and intolerance on both sides of the argument and the obvious maneuverings by very powerful people both in the EU and this Country to try and frustrate the vote.
I am conflicted as I would like to have stayed in the EU but not the EU of Junckers and the federalists but I would also like to be a free trading Nation not hindered by an unelected Euro elite in Brussels.
I am of the opinion the only way to lance the boil is to exit the EU and review attitudes once we have had a period as an Independent Country. Any successful attempt to keep us in Europe through the single market or customs union would create a chasm so large in our politics I doubt we would get over it in a generation.
AS far as TM is concerned she is hopeless at decision making and for that reason she has to go by Mid 2019. Yesterday's speech on tuition fees and Universities identified so many important issues but then she kicked it into the long grass with a one year review. This cannot go on beyond Spring 2019 and if she is still in power by then even I would send in a letter to Graham Brady, even though I am only a humble member.
As for her successor most of the candidates are white, pale and stale, and it must come from the new intake and probably another female.
This honesty may surprise some who have identified me as a TM apparatchik, but I am not, and I am saddened that she has not proved to be the leader that this Country so richly deserves.
And as for Corbyn I cannot find words to express my contempt for his politics.
We are in a really difficult place as a Country and how this pans out over the next couple of years no one, and I mean no one, can predict
Console yourself with the fact that out here in the real world, no-one really cares. I see the word BREXIT written on nearly every comment here and constantly on Twitter but I can't remember the last time I ever heard it spoken out loud. And I work all round the country. Business is going well and life is normal. Only political obsessives obsess about it. I can guarantee that there'll be eventually be a fudge, an agreement, some more fudge and more agreement and ad infinitum.
As long as Corbyn doesn't get his hands on power the country will be okay.
I agree your last sentence is key to the Country's future
It is but many used the same tactic with Milliband Kinnock and even Blair .If you always call the Labour leader in opposition a danger to the country, it loses its potency.
If the UK doesn't want a hard border and the Irish don't want a hard border, and the UK and the Irish are comfy with localised trade crossing the border unchecked, what's the problem?
If most people aspire to go to university, the State won't pay the costs, so students have fund it themselves, but it is too expensive, there is only one solution. The cost of that provision has to be slashed. That requires a root and branch reform of the university system so they become efficient education factories. That's not something you can change with a stroke of the pen.
I'm not suggesting that it is. But it is something that the PM, having decided to highlight the issue, really ought to have some ideas about.
It seems to me that 2 things are being seriously mixed up. On the one hand most Universities are factories producing graduates. That is not too tricky or too expensive except in some of the STEM subjects where expensive equipment may be required. On the other some of our Universities are internationally renowned centres of excellence and research. We are seeking to fund the latter on the backs of the former. This has also allowed those, well, less excellent Universities, who don't spend so much on research, to live very high on the hog, paying Vice Chancellors etc obscene sums and padding their administration because they have more money than they know what to do with.
The 2 should be separated. Undergraduates should be asked to at least to contribute to what they get, which is supposed to be the prospect of enhanced earnings through their career. But the research part of Universities needs to be funded and supported by the State to a greater extent than it is now so that this research cost is stripped out of the price of a degree.
She is the Brexit PM but her indecision and lack of communication skills will see her succeeded
In some respects Mrs May's anxious search for a consensus and tendency towards procrastination is quite suitable for Brexit and will help the deal emerge in a reasonable enough fashion in due course. What concerns me about her is that the same traits mean that the government is making pitiful progress in all the other, much more serious, issues that it faces.
Yesterday was a good example. Her analysis of the problems caused by the student loan system was reasonable and candid, not seeking to hide the role her own party had in the creation of the mess. But there was a total lack of leadership or ideas of how to resolve it. Instead we are having yet another review, delegating the task of finding some sort of solution to someone else, albeit within restricted financial parameters which will make their task pretty much impossible.
And then we have this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43121642 The new apprenticeships which she has sought to promote as a part of the solution are really struggling, being seriously underfunded and more than a bit patchwork. And yet they should be key to our economic future and productivity issues.
I fear that the old cliché of being in office but not in power is applicable. Time is a wasting and there are so many concerns to be addressed: education funding, training, housing, social care, a drug epidemic, the horrendous consequences of care in the community/neglect, our transport infrastructure, the facilitating of new industries...the list is almost endless. Whilst it is convenient for Brexit I am really not sure that we can continue to mark time like this.
I think we both agree it is not sustainable beyond next Spring
Mandelson:
"I have been part of three university finance reviews under two prime ministers: the third I initiated myself when I was Labour’s last universities minister in 2009. If there were any radical solutions to sustaining a lower-cost, world-standard higher education on offer that could charge students substantially less, they would have been found by now."
David Davis appears to be making a case for Remaining. Everything will be the same, it’s just that when it comes tom a vote we won’t have one!
I get the impression that DD now thinks this entire Brexit lark isn't all it's cracked up to be. You can't blame him - the poor man seems to be putting in a lot of work for negligibly outcome. I suspect in hindsight the vast majority of Leavers would like to, if not abandon Brexit, certainly go about it a lot differently.
She is the Brexit PM but her indecision and lack of communication skills will see her succeeded
In some respects Mrs May's anxious search for a consensus and tendency towards procrastination is quite suitable for Brexit and will help the deal emerge in a reasonable enough fashion in due course. What concerns me about her is that the same traits mean that the government is making pitiful progress in all the other, much more serious, issues that it faces.
Yesterday was a good example. Her analysis of the problems caused by the student loan system was reasonable and candid, not seeking to hide the role her own party had in the creation of the mess. But there was a total lack of leadership or ideas of how to resolve it. Instead we are having yet another review, delegating the task of finding some sort of solution to someone else, albeit within restricted financial parameters which will make their task pretty much impossible.
And then we have this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43121642 The new apprenticeships which she has sought to promote as a part of the solution are really struggling, being seriously underfunded and more than a bit patchwork. And yet they should be key to our economic future and productivity issues.
I fear that the old cliché of being in office but not in power is applicable. Time is a wasting and there are so many concerns to be addressed: education funding, training, housing, social care, a drug epidemic, the horrendous consequences of care in the community/neglect, our transport infrastructure, the facilitating of new industries...the list is almost endless. Whilst it is convenient for Brexit I am really not sure that we can continue to mark time like this.
I think we both agree it is not sustainable beyond next Spring
Mandelson:
"I have been part of three university finance reviews under two prime ministers: the third I initiated myself when I was Labour’s last universities minister in 2009. If there were any radical solutions to sustaining a lower-cost, world-standard higher education on offer that could charge students substantially less, they would have been found by now."
So Mandelson saying "Yeah, New Labour didn't have a f*cking clue how to sort it out either....."
This honesty may surprise some who have identified me as a TM apparatchik, but I am not, and I am saddened that she has not proved to be the leader that this Country so richly deserves
They do say that we get the politicians we deserve. Mrs May and Corbyn seem about right to me.
I would go further and say that none of our political parties are fit for purpose any longer. As Cyclefree often points out, the Tories are trashing their reputation as a unloved but generally fiscally competent party, Labour have been hijacked by Militant Mk.2 and the Lib Dems appear to have left the building.
I awaiting the events that will follow the first multi-national manufacturer to go. Given their recent warnings, the Japanese seem the most likely to pull the plug.
Possibly but the attacks on Milliband were just as bad.Stab his brother in the back, how he looked (antii semittism possibly) Danger on defence.Father a Marxist.Would ruin business, due to near communist ideas like regulating markets utilities.
David Davis appears to be making a case for Remaining. Everything will be the same, it’s just that when it comes tom a vote we won’t have one!
I get the impression that DD now thinks this entire Brexit lark isn't all it's cracked up to be. You can't blame him - the poor man seems to be putting in a lot of work for negligibly outcome. I suspect in hindsight the vast majority of Leavers would like to, if not abandon Brexit, certainly go about it a lot differently.
If the UK doesn't want a hard border and the Irish don't want a hard border, and the UK and the Irish are comfy with localised trade crossing the border unchecked, what's the problem?
Brussels.
Exactly.
Nope, it is WTO rules.
Nope. If it is written into a treaty then the WTO have no say over it. It is the EU who could not allow it. And from their point of view understandably so.
If the UK doesn't want a hard border and the Irish don't want a hard border, and the UK and the Irish are comfy with localised trade crossing the border unchecked, what's the problem?
Brussels.
Exactly.
Nope, it is WTO rules.
If we sign an agreement with Ireland then the WTO won't be interested. But Brussels won't allow that.
This has also allowed those, well, less excellent Universities, who don't spend so much on research, to live very high on the hog, paying Vice Chancellors etc obscene sums and padding their administration because they have more money than they know what to do with.
No. This is the bit people get wrong.
What the high income allows the second rate universities to do is to hire top researchers, buy expensive machines and develop their own centres of excellence. It is no longer safe to assume that Dr X of Oxbridge is better than Professor Y of the University of ex-WiganPoly. We'd need to check on a case-by-case basis.
David Davis appears to be making a case for Remaining. Everything will be the same, it’s just that when it comes tom a vote we won’t have one!
I get the impression that DD now thinks this entire Brexit lark isn't all it's cracked up to be. You can't blame him - the poor man seems to be putting in a lot of work for negligibly outcome. I suspect in hindsight the vast majority of Leavers would like to, if not abandon Brexit, certainly go about it a lot differently.
Don't forget: Brexit = Communism.
The idea is fantastic, just that no one is able to put it into practice.
She is the Brexit PM but her indecision and lack of communication skills will see her succeeded
In some respects Mrs May's anxious search for a consensus and tendency towards procrastination is quite suitable for Brexit and will help the deal emerge in a reasonable enough fashion in due course. What concerns me about her is that the same traits mean that the government is making pitiful progress in all the other, much more serious, issues that it faces.
Yesterday was a good example. Her analysis of the problems caused by the student loan system was reasonable and candid, not seeking to hide the role her own party had in the creation of the mess. But there was a total lack of leadership or ideas of how to resolve it. Instead we are having yet another review, delegating the task of finding some sort of solution to someone else, albeit within restricted financial parameters which will make their task pretty much impossible.
And then we have this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43121642 The new apprenticeships which she has sought to promote as a part of the solution are really struggling, being seriously underfunded and more than a bit patchwork. And yet they should be key to our economic future and productivity issues.
I fear that the old cliché of being in office but not in power is applicable. Time is a wasting and there are so many concerns to be addressed: education funding, training, housing, social care, a drug epidemic, the horrendous consequences of care in the community/neglect, our transport infrastructure, the facilitating of new industries...the list is almost endless. Whilst it is convenient for Brexit I am really not sure that we can continue to mark time like this.
I think we both agree it is not sustainable beyond next Spring
Mandelson:
"I have been part of three university finance reviews under two prime ministers: the third I initiated myself when I was Labour’s last universities minister in 2009. If there were any radical solutions to sustaining a lower-cost, world-standard higher education on offer that could charge students substantially less, they would have been found by now."
So Mandelson saying "Yeah, New Labour didn't have a f*cking clue how to sort it out either....."
It might have helped if Labour had not set an arbitrary goal of 50% going to Uni, still it kept young people from being NEETs and thus kept the unemployment figures lower for a few years - and what politician of recent times has thought more than a few years ahead?
Yorkcity said: Possibly but the attacks on Milliband were just as bad.Stab his brother in the back, how he looked (antii semittism possibly) Danger on defence.Father a Marxist.Would ruin business, due to near communist ideas like regulating markets utilities.
I said: I think it has to be said, with the benefit of hindsight and a comparison with what came afterwards, that the attacks on Milliband were hysterical and over the top.
He was interesting to listen to and still is. A bit like May he was very good at analysing a problem but very poor at coming up with practical solutions to fix it. I think that a Milliband government would have been largely paralysed as the practical problems with his intellectual solutions became apparent. Bit like now in fact. But it would not have been close to the disaster that a Corbyn/McDonnell led government would be.
If the UK doesn't want a hard border and the Irish don't want a hard border, and the UK and the Irish are comfy with localised trade crossing the border unchecked, what's the problem?
Brussels.
Exactly.
Nope, it is WTO rules.
Nope. If it is written into a treaty then the WTO have no say over it. It is the EU who could not allow it. And from their point of view understandably so.
Professor O’Donoghue explains that “the harder the Brexit, the harder the border.”
At what she calls the “very extreme” end of the spectrum is a hard border where the UK leaves with no deal and has to default to World Trade Organisation rules.
If the UK defaults to WTO rules (using copied-and-pasted versions of the EU’s tariffs in the short term), the EU would still have to maintain its side of the border. That would require check goods coming into Ireland from the UK.
That’s because the EU’s existence as a free trade area depends on its ability to demonstrate to the WTO that it can control its external borders properly.
The UK also has to honour its obligations to implement World Trade Organisation rules – that means putting in place a customs border if the UK leaves the EU Customs Union.
She is the Brexit PM but her indecision and lack of communication skills will see her succeeded
And then we have this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43121642 The new apprenticeships which she has sought to promote as a part of the solution are really struggling, being seriously underfunded and more than a bit patchwork. And yet they should be key to our economic future and productivity issues.
I fear that the old cliché of being in office but not in power is applicable. Time is a wasting and there are so many concerns to be addressed: education funding, training, housing, social care, a drug epidemic, the horrendous consequences of care in the community/neglect, our transport infrastructure, the facilitating of new industries...the list is almost endless. Whilst it is convenient for Brexit I am really not sure that we can continue to mark time like this.
I think we both agree it is not sustainable beyond next Spring
Mandelson:
"I have been part of three university finance reviews under two prime ministers: the third I initiated myself when I was Labour’s last universities minister in 2009. If there were any radical solutions to sustaining a lower-cost, world-standard higher education on offer that could charge students substantially less, they would have been found by now."
It needs a huge move away from 50% target and investment in vocational training. It also needs the introduction of two year degree courses, re-introduction of grants and many more bursaries.
The point I make is a one year review is too long - the need is urgent
I agree that Bachelors degrees should be 2 years and Masters (as first degrees as required in engineering these days) should be 3 years. Holidays are way too long and regardless of fees, this would save a whole year of living expenses and get the graduate into a job a year earlier.
Further, for many non-practical degrees, is there really a need to go off to uni at all? Distance learning, with webinars, Skype-style discussions and some face-to-face tutorials in regional hubs works fine. My experience with the OU was excellent. That leads to my next point - more opportunities for part-time degrees, so that you can combine study with a full or significant part time job.
She is the Brexit PM but her indecision and lack of communication skills will see her succeeded
In some respects Mrs May's anxious search for a consensus and tendency towards procrastination is quite suitable for Brexit and will help the deal emerge in a reasonable enough fashion in due course. What concerns me about her is that the same traits mean that the government is making pitiful progress in all the other, much more serious, issues that it faces.
Yesterday was a good example. Her analysis of the problems caused by the student loan system was reasonable and candid, not seeking to hide the role her own party had in the creation of the mess. But there was a total lack of leadership or ideas of how to resolve it. Instead we are having yet another review, delegating the task of finding some sort of solution to someone else, albeit within restricted financial parameters which will make their task pretty much impossible.
And then we have this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43121642 The new apprenticeships which she has sought to promote as a part of the solution are really struggling, being seriously underfunded and more than a bit patchwork. And yet they should be key to our economic future and productivity issues.
I fear that the old cliché of being in office but not in power is applicable. Time is a wasting and there are so many concerns to be addressed: education funding, training, housing, social care, a drug epidemic, the horrendous consequences of care in the community/neglect, our transport infrastructure, the facilitating of new industries...the list is almost endless. Whilst it is convenient for Brexit I am really not sure that we can continue to mark time like this.
That's the way in which May shows she's serious about solving a problem.
She doesn't do thinking on her feet. Her modus operandi is to do a thorough review, which she can review line-by-line in order to make her mind up. She'll then do a speech setting out her view and approach, in which she'll fail to answer any unanticipated questions.
If the UK doesn't want a hard border and the Irish don't want a hard border, and the UK and the Irish are comfy with localised trade crossing the border unchecked, what's the problem?
Brussels.
Exactly.
Nope, it is WTO rules.
The 26 counties are also obliged to secure their non-EU border by the Lisbon Treaty.
David Davis appears to be making a case for Remaining. Everything will be the same, it’s just that when it comes tom a vote we won’t have one!
I get the impression that DD now thinks this entire Brexit lark isn't all it's cracked up to be. You can't blame him - the poor man seems to be putting in a lot of work for negligibly outcome. I suspect in hindsight the vast majority of Leavers would like to, if not abandon Brexit, certainly go about it a lot differently.
Isn’t DD a 3 day a week man on Brexit? I’m not sure he can be accused of putting in a lot of work.
To me - he sounds a bit like a retired bloke who has unexpectedly found himself back in work and is a bit dismayed what used to work doesn’t seem to be cutting it any more.
And so he’s falling back on truisms.... “it won’t be that bad, this will all blow over, people always panic etc.”
For what it’s worth I suspect he’s right about t not being too big a disaster.
If the UK doesn't want a hard border and the Irish don't want a hard border, and the UK and the Irish are comfy with localised trade crossing the border unchecked, what's the problem?
Brussels.
Exactly.
Nope, it is WTO rules.
Nope. If it is written into a treaty then the WTO have no say over it. It is the EU who could not allow it. And from their point of view understandably so.
Professor O’Donoghue explains that “the harder the Brexit, the harder the border.”
At what she calls the “very extreme” end of the spectrum is a hard border where the UK leaves with no deal and has to default to World Trade Organisation rules.
If the UK defaults to WTO rules (using copied-and-pasted versions of the EU’s tariffs in the short term), the EU would still have to maintain its side of the border. That would require check goods coming into Ireland from the UK.
That’s because the EU’s existence as a free trade area depends on its ability to demonstrate to the WTO that it can control its external borders properly.
The UK also has to honour its obligations to implement World Trade Organisation rules – that means putting in place a customs border if the UK leaves the EU Customs Union.
Germany, Belgium couldn't give a monkey's about spending 2% on defence. Still in NATO Even Turkey - just invaded its neighbour. Still a member of NATO. Hungary despite all the moaning and groaning from Brussels. Still in the EU. Israel, Iran - both in contravention of tonnes of regulations. Still in the UN.
Different orgs, different countries but the principle remains. Once you're part of the gravy train/golf club, there has to be a massive conscious effort to be booted out. Do you seriously think a bit of border fudging will do it ?
If the UK doesn't want a hard border and the Irish don't want a hard border, and the UK and the Irish are comfy with localised trade crossing the border unchecked, what's the problem?
Brussels.
Exactly.
Nope, it is WTO rules.
The 26 counties are also obliged to secure their non-EU border by the Lisbon Treaty.
Britain does (I think) have an extant Free Trade Agreement with the Irish Republic. That would mean the WTO default rules don't apply and would mean that Ireland's obligations to the EU are of no greater import than their obligation to the UK.
Farming isn't profitable. It relies on massive subsidies. Take them away, and there will be so many second hand 4x4s for sale that Autotrader's server will crash.
If the UK doesn't want a hard border and the Irish don't want a hard border, and the UK and the Irish are comfy with localised trade crossing the border unchecked, what's the problem?
Brussels.
Exactly.
Nope, it is WTO rules.
The 26 counties are also obliged to secure their non-EU border by the Lisbon Treaty.
Hold on, isn't Hungary getting in trouble for doing just that ?
David Davis appears to be making a case for Remaining. Everything will be the same, it’s just that when it comes tom a vote we won’t have one!
I get the impression that DD now thinks this entire Brexit lark isn't all it's cracked up to be. You can't blame him - the poor man seems to be putting in a lot of work for negligibly outcome. I suspect in hindsight the vast majority of Leavers would like to, if not abandon Brexit, certainly go about it a lot differently.
Don't forget: Brexit = Communism.
The idea is fantastic, just that no one is able to put it into practice.
Except, Communism was an idealogy. Brexit is an escape from an idealogy - the great European superstate. One where escape is so difficult because those responsible for the idealogy have been making it impossible to try and escape for decades. In their sly little undemocratic ways.
One day, these same people bitching about Brexit will accept some responsibility for being the cause of that same Brexit.
Yeah, right, of course they will. When Hell starts getting a bit nippy.
Meanwhile, we keep digging tunnels Tom, Dick and Harry.....
If the UK doesn't want a hard border and the Irish don't want a hard border, and the UK and the Irish are comfy with localised trade crossing the border unchecked, what's the problem?
Brussels.
Exactly.
Nope, it is WTO rules.
Nope. If it is written into a treaty then the WTO have no say over it. It is the EU who could not allow it. And from their point of view understandably so.
Professor O’Donoghue explains that “the harder the Brexit, the harder the border.”
At what she calls the “very extreme” end of the spectrum is a hard border where the UK leaves with no deal and has to default to World Trade Organisation rules.
If the UK defaults to WTO rules (using copied-and-pasted versions of the EU’s tariffs in the short term), the EU would still have to maintain its side of the border. That would require check goods coming into Ireland from the UK.
That’s because the EU’s existence as a free trade area depends on its ability to demonstrate to the WTO that it can control its external borders properly.
The UK also has to honour its obligations to implement World Trade Organisation rules – that means putting in place a customs border if the UK leaves the EU Customs Union.
Germany, Belgium couldn't give a monkey's about spending 2% on defence. Still in NATO Even Turkey - just invaded its neighbour. Still a member of NATO. Hungary despite all the moaning and groaning from Brussels. Still in the EU. Israel, Iran - both in contravention of tonnes of regulations. Still in the UN.
Different orgs, different countries but the principle remains. Once you're part of the gravy train/golf club, there has to be a massive conscious effort to be booted out. Do you seriously think a bit of border fudging will do it ?
Because of the day job, my expectation is that we're going to run out of time to get it sorted before we Brexit so we tumble out onto WTO terms.
UKIP get called loons, fruitcakes and closet racists but the reason they did so well (rather than polling 5-10% as the fringiest of fringe parties) is because there were loons, fruitcakes and closet islamphobes (and probably racists too) on the eurofederalist side too.
Both shared an obsession with WWII (for different reasons), an uncompromising ideology, and favoured sidelining/ignoring those who disagreed.
Every time a centrist politician said, "don't be silly, no-one's talking about (a United States of Europe).", a eurofederalist politician would pop up saying precisely that. And, then, the integration bandwagon rolled on, providing enough evidence they might sort of have a point to worry them, exacerbated by having no vote on either the EU Constitution or Lisbon.
Both the Eurofederalists and UKIP fed off each other: if the EU had stayed as a stable EEC, with opt-in sovereign national cooperation on security and foreign policy in a loose multilateral alliance as required, we wouldn't be here. Both fringes would have largely died out.
Perhaps he could dust-off some of Mao's old schemes and ship intellects out to the farms. Apparently nobody needs experts any more so they should be available
If the UK doesn't want a hard border and the Irish don't want a hard border, and the UK and the Irish are comfy with localised trade crossing the border unchecked, what's the problem?
Brussels.
Exactly.
Nope, it is WTO rules.
The 26 counties are also obliged to secure their non-EU border by the Lisbon Treaty.
Hold on, isn't Hungary getting in trouble for doing just that ?
You only have to secure the border to make sure NOBODY CAN LEAVE.....
I find it interesting to read over and over here that the UKIP vote might go to the Tories and somehow poison them. The party which is actually offering a full on retro-view is the Labour party. They want 1970's nationalisations, trades unions and to attack the evil City.
At the last election, UKIP votes were split but more went red than blue - because, if the assumption is its oldies hankering after the past is true, then it is Corbyn who is the living embodiment of this, not May.
Perhaps he could dust-off some of Mao's old schemes and ship intellects out to the farms. Apparently nobody needs experts any more so they should be available
I have hayfever, makes me hors de combat for such activities.
It might have helped if Labour had not set an arbitrary goal of 50% going to Uni, still it kept young people from being NEETs and thus kept the unemployment figures lower for a few years - and what politician of recent times has thought more than a few years ahead?
I was always wary of the 50%. It did look rather like Labour were trying to build yet another minority to appeal to - those who didn't go to Uni.
Perhaps he could dust-off some of Mao's old schemes and ship intellects out to the farms. Apparently nobody needs experts any more so they should be available
I have hayfever, makes me hors de combat for such activities.
David Davis appears to be making a case for Remaining. Everything will be the same, it’s just that when it comes tom a vote we won’t have one!
I get the impression that DD now thinks this entire Brexit lark isn't all it's cracked up to be. You can't blame him - the poor man seems to be putting in a lot of work for negligibly outcome. I suspect in hindsight the vast majority of Leavers would like to, if not abandon Brexit, certainly go about it a lot differently.
Don't forget: Brexit = Communism.
The idea is fantastic, just that no one is able to put it into practice.
Except, Communism was an idealogy. Brexit is an escape from an idealogy - the great European superstate. One where escape is so difficult because those responsible for the idealogy have been making it impossible to try and escape for decades. In their sly little undemocratic ways.
One day, these same people bitching about Brexit will accept some responsibility for being the cause of that same Brexit.
Yeah, right, of course they will. When Hell starts getting a bit nippy.
Meanwhile, we keep digging tunnels Tom, Dick and Harry.....
European political integration is certainly ideological. It's not a pragmatic tidying up exercise.
I find it interesting to read over and over here that the UKIP vote might go to the Tories and somehow poison them. The party which is actually offering a full on retro-view is the Labour party. They want 1970's nationalisations, trades unions and to attack the evil City.
Corbyn is a fucking lunatic who will try to make life in Britain exactly as depicted in the lyric's of The Jam's "That's Entertainment". I'll still vote for him though...
I find it interesting to read over and over here that the UKIP vote might go to the Tories and somehow poison them. The party which is actually offering a full on retro-view is the Labour party. They want 1970's nationalisations, trades unions and to attack the evil City.
At the last election, UKIP votes were split but more went red than blue - because, if the assumption is its oldies hankering after the past is true, then it is Corbyn who is the living embodiment of this, not May.
The Great Age of the Fifties (UKIP) is dead. Long live the Great Age of the Seventies (Labour).
It's very odd, the financial markets have noticed what's going on, but journalists, political pundits, the opposition parties, and most of those posting here haven't.
Guys and gals, the Brexit negotiations are going remarkably well, much better than seemed possible even three months ago. We're going to get a good deal, and the cherries will be picked. It's now even looking extremely likely that there will be fairly seamless deal for the City.
and at the short bit in Boris' speech about regulatory alignment on washing machines (titter ye not, this is very significant in domestic political terms).
Methinks it's time to start moving back into UK small-caps, which are undervalued on any scenario other than a no-deal crash-out (or a Corbyn government, of course). (This is not investment advice, DYOR, etc etc).
Perhaps he could dust-off some of Mao's old schemes and ship intellects out to the farms. Apparently nobody needs experts any more so they should be available
I have hayfever, makes me hors de combat for such activities.
Strawberry Fields for you then. Forever.
When I become the country's first Directly Elected Dictator I'd be sending the Brexiteers out into the fields.
David Davis appears to be making a case for Remaining. Everything will be the same, it’s just that when it comes tom a vote we won’t have one!
I get the impression that DD now thinks this entire Brexit lark isn't all it's cracked up to be. You can't blame him - the poor man seems to be putting in a lot of work for negligibly outcome. I suspect in hindsight the vast majority of Leavers would like to, if not abandon Brexit, certainly go about it a lot differently.
Don't forget: Brexit = Communism.
The idea is fantastic, just that no one is able to put it into practice.
Except, Communism was an idealogy. Brexit is an escape from an idealogy - the great European superstate. One where escape is so difficult because those responsible for the idealogy have been making it impossible to try and escape for decades. In their sly little undemocratic ways.
One day, these same people bitching about Brexit will accept some responsibility for being the cause of that same Brexit.
Yeah, right, of course they will. When Hell starts getting a bit nippy.
Meanwhile, we keep digging tunnels Tom, Dick and Harry.....
You're kidding, right?
The ideology is of a proud, independent Britain, free of the EU shackles and able to make its way in the world unhindered by those pesky Brussels bureaucrats.
That is the ideology, perhaps more appropriate for the 17th Century, but which, in today's interconnected world, is pure fantasy.
It's very odd, the financial markets have noticed what's going on, but journalists, political pundits, the opposition parties, and most of those posting here haven't.
Guys and gals, the Brexit negotiations are going remarkably well, much better than seemed possible even three months ago. We're going to get a good deal, and the cherries will be picked. It's now even looking extremely likely that there will be fairly seamless deal for the City.
and at the short bit in Boris' speech about regulatory alignment on washing machines (titter ye not, this is very significant).
Methinks it's time to start moving back into UK small-caps, which are undervalued on any scenario other than a no-deal crash-out (or a Corbyn government, of course). (This is not investment advice, DYOR, etc etc).
I find it interesting to read over and over here that the UKIP vote might go to the Tories and somehow poison them. The party which is actually offering a full on retro-view is the Labour party. They want 1970's nationalisations, trades unions and to attack the evil City.
Corbyn is a fucking lunatic who will try to make life in Britain exactly as depicted in the lyric's of The Jam's "That's Entertainment". I'll still vote for him though...
As you are clearly “an idiot; a lunatic… [or] an imbecile who is not compos mentis”, you've just disenfranchised yourself!
David Davis appears to be making a case for Remaining. Everything will be the same, it’s just that when it comes tom a vote we won’t have one!
I get the impression that DD now thinks this entire Brexit lark isn't all it's cracked up to be. You can't blame him - the poor man seems to be putting in a lot of work for negligibly outcome. I suspect in hindsight the vast majority of Leavers would like to, if not abandon Brexit, certainly go about it a lot differently.
Don't forget: Brexit = Communism.
The idea is fantastic, just that no one is able to put it into practice.
Except, Communism was an idealogy. Brexit is an escape from an idealogy - the great European superstate. One where escape is so difficult because those responsible for the idealogy have been making it impossible to try and escape for decades. In their sly little undemocratic ways.
One day, these same people bitching about Brexit will accept some responsibility for being the cause of that same Brexit.
Yeah, right, of course they will. When Hell starts getting a bit nippy.
Meanwhile, we keep digging tunnels Tom, Dick and Harry.....
You're kidding, right?
The ideology is of a proud, independent Britain, free of the EU shackles and able to make its way in the world unhindered by those pesky Brussels bureaucrats.
That is the ideology, perhaps more appropriate for the 17th Century, but which, in today's interconnected world, is pure fantasy.
It's very odd, the financial markets have noticed what's going on, but journalists, political pundits, the opposition parties, and most of those posting here haven't.
Guys and gals, the Brexit negotiations are going remarkably well, much better than seemed possible even three months ago. We're going to get a good deal, and the cherries will be picked. It's now even looking extremely likely that there will be fairly seamless deal for the City.
and at the short bit in Boris' speech about regulatory alignment on washing machines (titter ye not, this is very significant in domestic political terms).
Methinks it's time to start moving back into UK small-caps, which are undervalued on any scenario other than a no-deal crash-out (or a Corbyn government, of course). (This is not investment advice, DYOR, etc etc).
Well of course noone is noticing Richard, David Davis is chuntering on about "How it won't quite be as bad as Mad Max" and Theresa May is announcing a review into tuition fees - even though she's planning on keeping them pretty much as is.
It might have helped if Labour had not set an arbitrary goal of 50% going to Uni, still it kept young people from being NEETs and thus kept the unemployment figures lower for a few years - and what politician of recent times has thought more than a few years ahead?
I was always wary of the 50%. It did look rather like Labour were trying to build yet another minority to appeal to - those who didn't go to Uni.
It also took no cognisance of the fact that UK industry needed a smaller percentage of the population at graduate level.
A good education is a great thing to have, but it is also nice to have a job to go to after you get educated and indebted by your education.
Having said that, No. 1 daughter is being interviewed for a Ph.D placement today.
I find it interesting to read over and over here that the UKIP vote might go to the Tories and somehow poison them. The party which is actually offering a full on retro-view is the Labour party. They want 1970's nationalisations, trades unions and to attack the evil City.
At the last election, UKIP votes were split but more went red than blue - because, if the assumption is its oldies hankering after the past is true, then it is Corbyn who is the living embodiment of this, not May.
UKIP voters from 2015 split about 50-20% in favour of the Conservatives over Labour, but the proportions varied markedly in different constituencies.
David Davis appears to be making a case for Remaining. Everything will be the same, it’s just that when it comes tom a vote we won’t have one!
I get the impression that DD now thinks this entire Brexit lark isn't all it's cracked up to be. You can't blame him - the poor man seems to be putting in a lot of work for negligibly outcome. I suspect in hindsight the vast majority of Leavers would like to, if not abandon Brexit, certainly go about it a lot differently.
Don't forget: Brexit = Communism.
The idea is fantastic, just that no one is able to put it into practice.
Except, Communism was an idealogy. Brexit is an escape from an idealogy - the great European superstate. One where escape is so difficult because those responsible for the idealogy have been making it impossible to try and escape for decades. In their sly little undemocratic ways.
One day, these same people bitching about Brexit will accept some responsibility for being the cause of that same Brexit.
Yeah, right, of course they will. When Hell starts getting a bit nippy.
Meanwhile, we keep digging tunnels Tom, Dick and Harry.....
You're kidding, right?
The ideology is of a proud, independent Britain, free of the EU shackles and able to make its way in the world unhindered by those pesky Brussels bureaucrats.
That is the ideology, perhaps more appropriate for the 17th Century, but which, in today's interconnected world, is pure fantasy.
166 of the world's UN member states are non-EU members.
Mr. Meeks, do you think the Conservatives should be ignoring the referendum result or seeking to reverse it? Even if you believe leaving the EU is horrendous, surely you can see the great danger of teaching the electorate that democracy doesn't count if the Establishment disagrees with the result?
No, as I have repeatedly said, the referendum result has to be implemented. It does not need to be implemented in accordance with a faith-based ideology, as it is at present.
I agree with your second point. But I also don't see that it is incompatible with democracy to ask people - "now that you see what is involved in leaving, the costs, the difficulties, the trade-offs etc, do you still want to do it?"
I find it interesting to read over and over here that the UKIP vote might go to the Tories and somehow poison them. The party which is actually offering a full on retro-view is the Labour party. They want 1970's nationalisations, trades unions and to attack the evil City.
At the last election, UKIP votes were split but more went red than blue - because, if the assumption is its oldies hankering after the past is true, then it is Corbyn who is the living embodiment of this, not May.
UKIP voters from 2015 split about 50-20% in favour of the Conservatives over Labour, but the proportions varied markedly in different constituencies.
That does fit for alot of constituencies, (Certainly around me in the East Midlands/South Yorkshire border) - but then you take a look at the result from say East Worthing and Shoreham amongst a couple of others which makes you scratch your head a bit.
It's very odd, the financial markets have noticed what's going on, but journalists, political pundits, the opposition parties, and most of those posting here haven't.
Guys and gals, the Brexit negotiations are going remarkably well, much better than seemed possible even three months ago. We're going to get a good deal, and the cherries will be picked. It's now even looking extremely likely that there will be fairly seamless deal for the City.
and at the short bit in Boris' speech about regulatory alignment on washing machines (titter ye not, this is very significant in domestic political terms).
Methinks it's time to start moving back into UK small-caps, which are undervalued on any scenario other than a no-deal crash-out (or a Corbyn government, of course). (This is not investment advice, DYOR, etc etc).
Well of course noone is noticing Richard, David Davis is chuntering on about "How it won't quite be as bad as Mad Max" and Theresa May is announcing a review into tuition fees - even though she's planning on keeping them pretty much as is.
There was an interesting point about halfway through the article that, even if a great deal was offered by the EU, would Mrs May be able to accept it? The hardline handbangers may have some thoughts on the matter.
It's very odd, the financial markets have noticed what's going on, but journalists, political pundits, the opposition parties, and most of those posting here haven't.
Guys and gals, the Brexit negotiations are going remarkably well, much better than seemed possible even three months ago. We're going to get a good deal, and the cherries will be picked. It's now even looking extremely likely that there will be fairly seamless deal for the City.
and at the short bit in Boris' speech about regulatory alignment on washing machines (titter ye not, this is very significant in domestic political terms).
Methinks it's time to start moving back into UK small-caps, which are undervalued on any scenario other than a no-deal crash-out (or a Corbyn government, of course). (This is not investment advice, DYOR, etc etc).
Well of course noone is noticing Richard, David Davis is chuntering on about "How it won't quite be as bad as Mad Max" and Theresa May is announcing a review into tuition fees - even though she's planning on keeping them pretty much as is.
There was an interesting point about halfway through the article that, even if a great deal was offered by the EU, would Mrs May be able to accept it? The hardline handbangers may have some thoughts on the matter.
If it is a great deal (and I've advocated an associate agreement before, so very pleased to see some rumblings about it from Verhofstadt), then May can actually go to the country. It's the nuclear option, but why not?
There was an interesting point about halfway through the article that, even if a great deal was offered by the EU, would Mrs May be able to accept it? The hardline handbangers may have some thoughts on the matter.
Tory party tribalism will kick in and I expect Rees Mogg will come out hailing "May's magnificent Brexit". Just a thought..
Mr. Meeks, do you think the Conservatives should be ignoring the referendum result or seeking to reverse it? Even if you believe leaving the EU is horrendous, surely you can see the great danger of teaching the electorate that democracy doesn't count if the Establishment disagrees with the result?
No, as I have repeatedly said, the referendum result has to be implemented. It does not need to be implemented in accordance with a faith-based ideology, as it is at present.
I agree with your second point. But I also don't see that it is incompatible with democracy to ask people - "now that you see what is involved in leaving, the costs, the difficulties, the trade-offs etc, do you still want to do it?"
Indeed, else why ever have a second and subsequent General Election(s)? Would we really say "The people elected party xxxxxxxx - the will of the people is clear and further elections are not needed"?
Mrs C, it requires red meat to be thrown, whether that's more opt-outs, vetoes, migration controls, or just a bigger rebate. Were that to be so, it would at least be arguably legitimate to go to the country.
I find it interesting to read over and over here that the UKIP vote might go to the Tories and somehow poison them. The party which is actually offering a full on retro-view is the Labour party. They want 1970's nationalisations, trades unions and to attack the evil City.
At the last election, UKIP votes were split but more went red than blue - because, if the assumption is its oldies hankering after the past is true, then it is Corbyn who is the living embodiment of this, not May.
The Great Age of the Fifties (UKIP) is dead. Long live the Great Age of the Seventies (Labour).
1950s? The EU is a 1950s throwback, having its origins in the 1958 Treaty of Rome (or even the 1951 Treaty of Paris if you prefer!).
It's very odd, the financial markets have noticed what's going on, but journalists, political pundits, the opposition parties, and most of those posting here haven't.
Guys and gals, the Brexit negotiations are going remarkably well, much better than seemed possible even three months ago. We're going to get a good deal, and the cherries will be picked. It's now even looking extremely likely that there will be fairly seamless deal for the City.
and at the short bit in Boris' speech about regulatory alignment on washing machines (titter ye not, this is very significant in domestic political terms).
Methinks it's time to start moving back into UK small-caps, which are undervalued on any scenario other than a no-deal crash-out (or a Corbyn government, of course). (This is not investment advice, DYOR, etc etc).
Well of course noone is noticing Richard, David Davis is chuntering on about "How it won't quite be as bad as Mad Max" and Theresa May is announcing a review into tuition fees - even though she's planning on keeping them pretty much as is.
There was an interesting point about halfway through the article that, even if a great deal was offered by the EU, would Mrs May be able to accept it? The hardline handbangers may have some thoughts on the matter.
If it is a great deal (and I've advocated an associate agreement before, so very pleased to see some rumblings about it from Verhofstadt), then May can actually go to the country. It's the nuclear option, but why not?
She could always start off a two year review to consider if a second referendum should be held to accept the EU terms before March 2019.
Mrs C, it requires red meat to be thrown, whether that's more opt-outs, vetoes, migration controls, or just a bigger rebate. Were that to be so, it would at least be arguably legitimate to go to the country.
But I'm not sure I can see that happening.
and it won't as then other countries would want the same.
It is not really the case that PR for European Elections was forced on us in 1999, as it was the policy of the Labour Party to use PR for these elections following the Plant Commission’s recommendations and agreement to implement this was part of the ‘Cook-Maclennan agreement’ concluded by Labour and the Liberal Democrats in early 1997 prior to the General Election of that year. There was then some doubt as to whether or not Labour would stick to this agreement for 1999 but Paddy Ashdown was very tough in holding Tony Blair to this in the period of the Joint Consultative Committee between the Labour Government and the Liberal Democrats which lasted for two years after 1997. More of the background to this is included in my recently published memoir ‘Winning Here’.
Mr. Meeks, do you think the Conservatives should be ignoring the referendum result or seeking to reverse it? Even if you believe leaving the EU is horrendous, surely you can see the great danger of teaching the electorate that democracy doesn't count if the Establishment disagrees with the result?
No, as I have repeatedly said, the referendum result has to be implemented. It does not need to be implemented in accordance with a faith-based ideology, as it is at present.
I agree with your second point. But I also don't see that it is incompatible with democracy to ask people - "now that you see what is involved in leaving, the costs, the difficulties, the trade-offs etc, do you still want to do it?"
Indeed, else why ever have a second and subsequent General Election(s)? Would we really say "The people elected party xxxxxxxx - the will of the people is clear and further elections are not needed"?
We regularly retest opinion. We always have done.
Sure, but I think we can wait till we've actually left the EU to do so. I'd be happy to campaign to rejoin, I certainly think we need to head out before coming back in though.
I find it interesting to read over and over here that the UKIP vote might go to the Tories and somehow poison them. The party which is actually offering a full on retro-view is the Labour party. They want 1970's nationalisations, trades unions and to attack the evil City.
At the last election, UKIP votes were split but more went red than blue - because, if the assumption is its oldies hankering after the past is true, then it is Corbyn who is the living embodiment of this, not May.
The Great Age of the Fifties (UKIP) is dead. Long live the Great Age of the Seventies (Labour).
1950s? The EU is a 1950s throwback, having its origins in the 1958 Treaty of Rome (or even the 1951 Treaty of Paris if you prefer!).
Ummm: there are hundreds of good arguments against the EU (and I've used many of them myself). But on that basis, the United Kingdom is a throwback to 1603*.
* Or 1066 or the 1200s or 1708 or any number of other justifiable dates.
It's very odd, the financial markets have noticed what's going on, but journalists, political pundits, the opposition parties, and most of those posting here haven't.
Guys and gals, the Brexit negotiations are going remarkably well, much better than seemed possible even three months ago. We're going to get a good deal, and the cherries will be picked. It's now even looking extremely likely that there will be fairly seamless deal for the City.
and at the short bit in Boris' speech about regulatory alignment on washing machines (titter ye not, this is very significant in domestic political terms).
Methinks it's time to start moving back into UK small-caps, which are undervalued on any scenario other than a no-deal crash-out (or a Corbyn government, of course). (This is not investment advice, DYOR, etc etc).
Well of course noone is noticing Richard, David Davis is chuntering on about "How it won't quite be as bad as Mad Max" and Theresa May is announcing a review into tuition fees - even though she's planning on keeping them pretty much as is.
There was an interesting point about halfway through the article that, even if a great deal was offered by the EU, would Mrs May be able to accept it? The hardline handbangers may have some thoughts on the matter.
If it is a great deal (and I've advocated an associate agreement before, so very pleased to see some rumblings about it from Verhofstadt), then May can actually go to the country. It's the nuclear option, but why not?
She could always start off a two year review to consider if a second referendum should be held to accept the EU terms before March 2019.
Mr. Meeks, do you think the Conservatives should be ignoring the referendum result or seeking to reverse it? Even if you believe leaving the EU is horrendous, surely you can see the great danger of teaching the electorate that democracy doesn't count if the Establishment disagrees with the result?
No, as I have repeatedly said, the referendum result has to be implemented. It does not need to be implemented in accordance with a faith-based ideology, as it is at present.
I agree with your second point. But I also don't see that it is incompatible with democracy to ask people - "now that you see what is involved in leaving, the costs, the difficulties, the trade-offs etc, do you still want to do it?"
Indeed, else why ever have a second and subsequent General Election(s)? Would we really say "The people elected party xxxxxxxx - the will of the people is clear and further elections are not needed"?
We regularly retest opinion. We always have done.
Thats not entirely true. A GE is a mandate for a set period of time, and that is what people understand and vote on that basis. We voted to leave, that is what the voters understood in the referendum, and no 2 referendum was offered at that point in time wether on final agreement or not.
Now, if there was a referendum every 5 years on our continuing membership, then you might have a point.
Mr. Meeks, do you think the Conservatives should be ignoring the referendum result or seeking to reverse it? Even if you believe leaving the EU is horrendous, surely you can see the great danger of teaching the electorate that democracy doesn't count if the Establishment disagrees with the result?
No, as I have repeatedly said, the referendum result has to be implemented. It does not need to be implemented in accordance with a faith-based ideology, as it is at present.
I agree with your second point. But I also don't see that it is incompatible with democracy to ask people - "now that you see what is involved in leaving, the costs, the difficulties, the trade-offs etc, do you still want to do it?"
Indeed, else why ever have a second and subsequent General Election(s)? Would we really say "The people elected party xxxxxxxx - the will of the people is clear and further elections are not needed"?
We regularly retest opinion. We always have done.
Sure, but I think we can wait till we've actually left the EU to do so. I'd be happy to campaign to rejoin, I certainly think we need to head out before coming back in though.
Our position as a net-contributor, non-Euro country was strategically unsound. If we invoked article 49, it should be as a full-fat member. No opt outs.
I find it interesting to read over and over here that the UKIP vote might go to the Tories and somehow poison them. The party which is actually offering a full on retro-view is the Labour party. They want 1970's nationalisations, trades unions and to attack the evil City.
At the last election, UKIP votes were split but more went red than blue - because, if the assumption is its oldies hankering after the past is true, then it is Corbyn who is the living embodiment of this, not May.
The Great Age of the Fifties (UKIP) is dead. Long live the Great Age of the Seventies (Labour).
1950s? The EU is a 1950s throwback, having its origins in the 1958 Treaty of Rome (or even the 1951 Treaty of Paris if you prefer!).
Ummm: there are hundreds of good arguments against the EU (and I've used many of them myself). But on that basis, the United Kingdom is a throwback to 1603*.
* Or 1066 or the 1200s or 1708 or any number of other justifiable dates.
David Davis appears to be making a case for Remaining. Everything will be the same, it’s just that when it comes tom a vote we won’t have one!
I get the impression that DD now thinks this entire Brexit lark isn't all it's cracked up to be. You can't blame him - the poor man seems to be putting in a lot of work for negligibly outcome. I suspect in hindsight the vast majority of Leavers would like to, if not abandon Brexit, certainly go about it a lot differently.
Don't forget: Brexit = Communism.
The idea is fantastic, just that no one is able to put it into practice.
Except, Communism was an idealogy. Brexit is an escape from an idealogy - the great European superstate. One where escape is so difficult because those responsible for the idealogy have been making it impossible to try and escape for decades. In their sly little undemocratic ways.
One day, these same people bitching about Brexit will accept some responsibility for being the cause of that same Brexit.
Yeah, right, of course they will. When Hell starts getting a bit nippy.
Meanwhile, we keep digging tunnels Tom, Dick and Harry.....
European political integration is certainly ideological. It's not a pragmatic tidying up exercise.
It could be argued to be a tidying up exercise that's been on the back-burner for 1500+ years?
It's very odd, the financial markets have noticed what's going on, but journalists, political pundits, the opposition parties, and most of those posting here haven't.
Guys and gals, the Brexit negotiations are going remarkably well, much better than seemed possible even three months ago. We're going to get a good deal, and the cherries will be picked. It's now even looking extremely likely that there will be fairly seamless deal for the City.
and at the short bit in Boris' speech about regulatory alignment on washing machines (titter ye not, this is very significant in domestic political terms).
Methinks it's time to start moving back into UK small-caps, which are undervalued on any scenario other than a no-deal crash-out (or a Corbyn government, of course). (This is not investment advice, DYOR, etc etc).
Well of course noone is noticing Richard, David Davis is chuntering on about "How it won't quite be as bad as Mad Max" and Theresa May is announcing a review into tuition fees - even though she's planning on keeping them pretty much as is.
There was an interesting point about halfway through the article that, even if a great deal was offered by the EU, would Mrs May be able to accept it? The hardline handbangers may have some thoughts on the matter.
That's why I pointed to the remarks on washing machines by Boris.
Mr. Meeks, do you think the Conservatives should be ignoring the referendum result or seeking to reverse it? Even if you believe leaving the EU is horrendous, surely you can see the great danger of teaching the electorate that democracy doesn't count if the Establishment disagrees with the result?
No, as I have repeatedly said, the referendum result has to be implemented. It does not need to be implemented in accordance with a faith-based ideology, as it is at present.
I agree with your second point. But I also don't see that it is incompatible with democracy to ask people - "now that you see what is involved in leaving, the costs, the difficulties, the trade-offs etc, do you still want to do it?"
Indeed, else why ever have a second and subsequent General Election(s)? Would we really say "The people elected party xxxxxxxx - the will of the people is clear and further elections are not needed"?
We regularly retest opinion. We always have done.
If a party wins the next general election with a manifesto commitment for a second EU referendum as the Tories won in 2015 with a manifesto commitment for an EU referendum then fair enough. If not the Leave vote stands as is
If the UK doesn't want a hard border and the Irish don't want a hard border, and the UK and the Irish are comfy with localised trade crossing the border unchecked, what's the problem?
Brussels.
Exactly.
Nope, it is WTO rules.
If we sign an agreement with Ireland then the WTO won't be interested. But Brussels won't allow that.
People seem to insist on making the Irish border a big issue. It's not.
There are bits of Germany that are inside Switzerland. There's a bit of Italy that's inside Switzerland. Solutions were found. And will be found here, because the price of not finding a solution is too high.
These are much, much harder problems to solve than the Irish border.
It is not really the case that PR for European Elections was forced on us in 1999, as it was the policy of the Labour Party to use PR for these elections following the Plant Commission’s recommendations and agreement to implement this was part of the ‘Cook-Maclennan agreement’ concluded by Labour and the Liberal Democrats in early 1997 prior to the General Election of that year. There was then some doubt as to whether or not Labour would stick to this agreement for 1999 but Paddy Ashdown was very tough in holding Tony Blair to this in the period of the Joint Consultative Committee between the Labour Government and the Liberal Democrats which lasted for two years after 1997. More of the background to this is included in my recently published memoir ‘Winning Here’.
With respect, that's an interpretation that bears little relation to the dynamics of the time.
Ashdown might well have been as tough as he could but against a Labour majority of over 150, he had virtually no leverage at all. Labour stuck to the agreement because it suited Blair's perception of his and Labour's interests.
To put it another way, suppose Blair had reneged on the deal. What would have been the consequences? The Lib Dems walk out of the joint committees. So what?
It's very odd, the financial markets have noticed what's going on, but journalists, political pundits, the opposition parties, and most of those posting here haven't.
Guys and gals, the Brexit negotiations are going remarkably well, much better than seemed possible even three months ago. We're going to get a good deal, and the cherries will be picked. It's now even looking extremely likely that there will be fairly seamless deal for the City.
and at the short bit in Boris' speech about regulatory alignment on washing machines (titter ye not, this is very significant in domestic political terms).
Methinks it's time to start moving back into UK small-caps, which are undervalued on any scenario other than a no-deal crash-out (or a Corbyn government, of course). (This is not investment advice, DYOR, etc etc).
The problem remains the red lines Mrs May created in order to appease the Brexit loons in the right wing press and the Conservative party. As the article you link to states:
A comprehensive association agreement between the UK and EU would likely be subject to European Court of Justice arbitration. This would be a difficult pill to swallow for the Conservative party's staunch Leavers who want to be free of all European law after Brexit. An association agreement on goods and/or services would also require at least some degree of significant regulatory alignment between Britain and the EU, too.
Does this pass the Rees Mogg test? If it doesn't, will the PM summon up the political courage to put her country first? If she does, then we will get a sane, soft Brexit. But making investments now on the back of that happening would be brave.
Comments
"I have been part of three university finance reviews under two prime ministers: the third I initiated myself when I was Labour’s last universities minister in 2009. If there were any radical solutions to sustaining a lower-cost, world-standard higher education on offer that could charge students substantially less, they would have been found by now."
The point I make is a one year review is too long - the need is urgent
It seems to me that 2 things are being seriously mixed up. On the one hand most Universities are factories producing graduates. That is not too tricky or too expensive except in some of the STEM subjects where expensive equipment may be required. On the other some of our Universities are internationally renowned centres of excellence and research. We are seeking to fund the latter on the backs of the former. This has also allowed those, well, less excellent Universities, who don't spend so much on research, to live very high on the hog, paying Vice Chancellors etc obscene sums and padding their administration because they have more money than they know what to do with.
The 2 should be separated. Undergraduates should be asked to at least to contribute to what they get, which is supposed to be the prospect of enhanced earnings through their career. But the research part of Universities needs to be funded and supported by the State to a greater extent than it is now so that this research cost is stripped out of the price of a degree.
I would go further and say that none of our political parties are fit for purpose any longer. As Cyclefree often points out, the Tories are trashing their reputation as a unloved but generally fiscally competent party, Labour have been hijacked by Militant Mk.2 and the Lib Dems appear to have left the building.
I awaiting the events that will follow the first multi-national manufacturer to go. Given their recent warnings, the Japanese seem the most likely to pull the plug.
Corbyn is in a whole new league
Possibly but the attacks on Milliband were just as bad.Stab his brother in the back, how he looked (antii semittism possibly) Danger on defence.Father a Marxist.Would ruin business, due to near communist ideas like regulating markets utilities.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150316-ten-parasites-that-control-minds
What the high income allows the second rate universities to do is to hire top researchers, buy expensive machines and develop their own centres of excellence. It is no longer safe to assume that Dr X of Oxbridge is better than Professor Y of the University of ex-WiganPoly. We'd need to check on a case-by-case basis.
The idea is fantastic, just that no one is able to put it into practice.
Possibly but the attacks on Milliband were just as bad.Stab his brother in the back, how he looked (antii semittism possibly) Danger on defence.Father a Marxist.Would ruin business, due to near communist ideas like regulating markets utilities.
I said:
I think it has to be said, with the benefit of hindsight and a comparison with what came afterwards, that the attacks on Milliband were hysterical and over the top.
He was interesting to listen to and still is. A bit like May he was very good at analysing a problem but very poor at coming up with practical solutions to fix it. I think that a Milliband government would have been largely paralysed as the practical problems with his intellectual solutions became apparent. Bit like now in fact. But it would not have been close to the disaster that a Corbyn/McDonnell led government would be.
At what she calls the “very extreme” end of the spectrum is a hard border where the UK leaves with no deal and has to default to World Trade Organisation rules.
If the UK defaults to WTO rules (using copied-and-pasted versions of the EU’s tariffs in the short term), the EU would still have to maintain its side of the border. That would require check goods coming into Ireland from the UK.
That’s because the EU’s existence as a free trade area depends on its ability to demonstrate to the WTO that it can control its external borders properly.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-what-are-the-options-for-the-irish-border-after-brexit
The UK also has to honour its obligations to implement World Trade Organisation rules – that means putting in place a customs border if the UK leaves the EU Customs Union.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-northern-ireland-border-republic-dup-arlene-foster-theresa-may-david-davis-eu-a8093171.html
Further, for many non-practical degrees, is there really a need to go off to uni at all? Distance learning, with webinars, Skype-style discussions and some face-to-face tutorials in regional hubs works fine. My experience with the OU was excellent. That leads to my next point - more opportunities for part-time degrees, so that you can combine study with a full or significant part time job.
She doesn't do thinking on her feet. Her modus operandi is to do a thorough review, which she can review line-by-line in order to make her mind up. She'll then do a speech setting out her view and approach, in which she'll fail to answer any unanticipated questions.
Oh dear. What a shame. Never mind.
To me - he sounds a bit like a retired bloke who has unexpectedly found himself back in work and is a bit dismayed what used to work doesn’t seem to be cutting it any more.
And so he’s falling back on truisms.... “it won’t be that bad, this will all blow over, people always panic etc.”
For what it’s worth I suspect he’s right about t not being too big a disaster.
Unless UKIP can find a political purpose it will be electorally dead. Winning FPTP is neither necessary nor sufficient to be politically relevant.
Even Turkey - just invaded its neighbour. Still a member of NATO.
Hungary despite all the moaning and groaning from Brussels. Still in the EU.
Israel, Iran - both in contravention of tonnes of regulations. Still in the UN.
Different orgs, different countries but the principle remains. Once you're part of the gravy train/golf club, there has to be a massive conscious effort to be booted out.
Do you seriously think a bit of border fudging will do it ?
One day, these same people bitching about Brexit will accept some responsibility for being the cause of that same Brexit.
Yeah, right, of course they will. When Hell starts getting a bit nippy.
Meanwhile, we keep digging tunnels Tom, Dick and Harry.....
The biggest misnomer is 'Most Favoured Nation'
Both shared an obsession with WWII (for different reasons), an uncompromising ideology, and favoured sidelining/ignoring those who disagreed.
Every time a centrist politician said, "don't be silly, no-one's talking about (a United States of Europe).", a eurofederalist politician would pop up saying precisely that. And, then, the integration bandwagon rolled on, providing enough evidence they might sort of have a point to worry them, exacerbated by having no vote on either the EU Constitution or Lisbon.
Both the Eurofederalists and UKIP fed off each other: if the EU had stayed as a stable EEC, with opt-in sovereign national cooperation on security and foreign policy in a loose multilateral alliance as required, we wouldn't be here. Both fringes would have largely died out.
At the last election, UKIP votes were split but more went red than blue - because, if the assumption is its oldies hankering after the past is true, then it is Corbyn who is the living embodiment of this, not May.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/a-brighter-future-for-farming
Guys and gals, the Brexit negotiations are going remarkably well, much better than seemed possible even three months ago. We're going to get a good deal, and the cherries will be picked. It's now even looking extremely likely that there will be fairly seamless deal for the City.
Look here:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/european-parliament-brexit-resolution-association-agreement-single-market-2018-2
and at DD's speech
and at the changed tone in Ireland
and at the short bit in Boris' speech about regulatory alignment on washing machines (titter ye not, this is very significant in domestic political terms).
Methinks it's time to start moving back into UK small-caps, which are undervalued on any scenario other than a no-deal crash-out (or a Corbyn government, of course). (This is not investment advice, DYOR, etc etc).
Gulags for Hawaiian pizza lovers
The ideology is of a proud, independent Britain, free of the EU shackles and able to make its way in the world unhindered by those pesky Brussels bureaucrats.
That is the ideology, perhaps more appropriate for the 17th Century, but which, in today's interconnected world, is pure fantasy.
O tempora o mores.
A good education is a great thing to have, but it is also nice to have a job to go to after you get educated and indebted by your education.
Having said that, No. 1 daughter is being interviewed for a Ph.D placement today.
Increasingly there's the likelihood of a snow event next week. Be prepared.
I just hope the sequel lives up to the first game.
The Directly Elected Dictator's Harem or Concubines on the other hand...
We regularly retest opinion. We always have done.
But I'm not sure I can see that happening.
* Or 1066 or the 1200s or 1708 or any number of other justifiable dates.
Now, if there was a referendum every 5 years on our continuing membership, then you might have a point.
In retrospect, do you think it would've been better to have held a referendum on Lisbon?
There are bits of Germany that are inside Switzerland. There's a bit of Italy that's inside Switzerland. Solutions were found. And will be found here, because the price of not finding a solution is too high.
These are much, much harder problems to solve than the Irish border.
(answer Yes)
Maybe the vote should be seen though that prism, along with the many others.
Ashdown might well have been as tough as he could but against a Labour majority of over 150, he had virtually no leverage at all. Labour stuck to the agreement because it suited Blair's perception of his and Labour's interests.
To put it another way, suppose Blair had reneged on the deal. What would have been the consequences? The Lib Dems walk out of the joint committees. So what?
A comprehensive association agreement between the UK and EU would likely be subject to European Court of Justice arbitration. This would be a difficult pill to swallow for the Conservative party's staunch Leavers who want to be free of all European law after Brexit.
An association agreement on goods and/or services would also require at least some degree of significant regulatory alignment between Britain and the EU, too.
Does this pass the Rees Mogg test? If it doesn't, will the PM summon up the political courage to put her country first? If she does, then we will get a sane, soft Brexit. But making investments now on the back of that happening would be brave.