Truly incredible news re Iran - Trump announced his decision in a speech, not just in a tweet.
KGN on Channel 4 news getting very fired up about how everybody knows Iran has never supported Al-Qaeda or the Taleban. Seems the truth is far more complicated than that. Feels very odd to be supporting Trump's factuality but this stuff has been in the public domain (and in a lot of respectable and even impeccably liberal sources, though apparently not Channel 4 news!!) for a while now.
How many people does have Corbyn have left who are able and willing to serve?
Or at least, willing to serve (given he's kept his ex-girlfriend on).
More than previously I would think - absent the admittedly problematic areas of anti-semitism and foreign affairs, the PLP seems perfectly content with him.
I make it a 36% swing for the LDs to win Lewisham East which is huge but it's been done before. The UKIP swing to win Clacton was higher and of course Simon Hughes got a swing of some 44% when he won Southwark & Bermondsey. The LDs got a swing close to 36% in winning Christchurch in 1993 if memory serves.
It's a huge ask and last Thursday's elections emphasise the scale of the task. The LD Mayoral candidate, Chris Maines (could he be the LD candidate ?) came fourth behind the Green with 8%. Labour won with 54%, the Conservative got 13% and the Green 10%. Labour won all 54 seats on Lewisham Council for good measure polling 60% with the Conservatives on 14% and the LDs and Greens on 12% each.
In Southwark, there was a split on the Labour side with a "Real Bermondsey Labour" candidate standing (and outpolling the Conservative). I suppose IF Labour got into a vicious internal conflict leading to two or more candidates, that would help the Opposition parties but that's about all.
Do I think the LDs could come a solid second ? Yes unless the Greens get some local traction early but I still think a 5,000+ majority for Labour on a 35-40% turnout.
Can someone please explain to me why the Customs partnership is such a bad idea?
I see no objection in principle. The UK sets its tariff schedule. So does the EU. The UK applies by default the EU tariff to all goods landing in the UK (I suspect this is the problem) and if they are finally bound for the EU, that’s it. If they are bound for the UK market then the consumer / producer can claim the difference back from HMRC. I imagine an issue is if the UK wished to apply tariffs at a *higher* rate than the EU. Unlikely, but in this case I’d expect the UK to apply the higher UK rate with the producer/consumer then claiming back the difference from the EU rate if it’s bound for the EU. You would need some sensible rules of origin test. You’d also need the EU to reciprocate for goods heading to the UK.
That allows the maximum of border flexibility for things like cars and planes and also allows the UK to set its own trade policy and do its own trade deals accordingly. It’s different from a Customs Union, which essentially means outsourcing our tariffs and trade policy wholesale to the EU without any say.
Problem?
You would have to know for all goods whether they:
a) Originated outside the Customs area, landed in the UK and ended.up in the UK, or b) Originated outside the Customs area, landed in the UK and ended.up in the EU, or c) Originated outside the Customs area, landed in the EU and ended.up in the UK, or d) Originated inside the Customs area.
Differential refunds would apply. Then there's the complication of supply chains where value gets added along the way. You would presumably have to check these categories not on the border because that's the whole point of a customs union. There may be incompatibilities with WTO rules and Most Favoured Nation issues with third country tariff agreements. The red tape and fraud would be huge. And all because people don't want to call a customs union for what it is, even though the UK will need to notify this as a customs union to the WTO. Customs unions are actually relatively straightforward things.
If we have a FTA with the EU with sensible rules of origin the Customs Union issue really becomes a complete irrelevance. A Customs Union is really an adjunct to the SM that we are leaving designed to give it internal and external coherence, something that is not our problem after Brexit. Of course if we don't get a FTA then matters are more complicated but I still don't see why we need a Customs Union, in fact we would not have one in those circumstances.
The Customs Partnership seems a very complicated way of having rules of origin tests for third party goods coming into either the UK or the EU and then being transferred on either as the original goods or as part of some manufactured product. It really should not require that level of complexity.
The UK needs to push for a FTA. This is largely a distraction by those who wish us to remain more closely aligned with the Single Market. Boris is not often right but he is about this.
I thought we wouldn't have to pay anything and they were gagging to offer us FTA. Now it has come down to we have "push" for a FTA.
Let's think it through for a moment. What is a Single Market ? Effectively, a FTA for each member country with the other 27, right ?
So why should they agree to UK having the right of a FTA with none of responsibilities ?
It's like you stop being a member of a club, but still have the right to use the gym and shower afterwards.
Well their massive trade surplus with us is one obvious reason but I agree that some sort of subscription is going to be required to cover the costs of the facilities that we use (to keep your analogy going). So I expect us to pay some of the cost of administrating the SM, the cost of the Patents Court and whatever other parts we use. Bit like someone who gives up membership but pays a day rate when they pop in.
If we have a FTA with the EU with sensible rules of origin the Customs Union issue really becomes a complete irrelevance. A Customs Union is really an adjunct to the SM that we are leaving designed to give it internal and external coherence, something that is not our problem after Brexit. Of course if we don't get a FTA then matters are more complicated but I still don't see why we need a Customs Union, in fact we would not have one in those circumstances.
The Customs Partnership seems a very complicated way of having rules of origin tests for third party goods coming into either the UK or the EU and then being transferred on either as the original goods or as part of some manufactured product. It really should not require that level of complexity.
The UK needs to push for a FTA. This is largely a distraction by those who wish us to remain more closely aligned with the Single Market. Boris is not often right but he is about this.
I thought we wouldn't have to pay anything and they were gagging to offer us FTA. Now it has come down to we have "push" for a FTA.
Let's think it through for a moment. What is a Single Market ? Effectively, a FTA for each member country with the other 27, right ?
So why should they agree to UK having the right of a FTA with none of responsibilities ?
It's like you stop being a member of a club, but still have the right to use the gym and shower afterwards.
It's not unusual for clubs to make some facilities available to non-members on a pay as you go basis.
Can someone please explain to me why the Customs partnership is such a bad idea?
I see no objection in principle. The UK sets its tariff schedule. So does the EU. The UK applies by default the EU tariff to all goods landing in the UK (I suspect this is the problem) and if they are finally bound for the EU, that’s it. If they are bound for the UK market then the consumer / producer can claim the difference back from HMRC. I imagine an issue is if the UK wished to apply tariffs at a *higher* rate than the EU. Unlikely, but in this case I’d expect the UK to apply the higher UK rate with the producer/consumer then claiming back the difference from the EU rate if it’s bound for the EU. You would need some sensible rules of origin test. You’d also need the EU to reciprocate for goods heading to the UK.
That allows the maximum of border flexibility for things like cars and planes and also allows the UK to set its own trade policy and do its own trade deals accordingly. It’s different from a Customs Union, which essentially means outsourcing our tariffs and trade policy wholesale to the EU without any say.
Problem?
You would have to know for all goods whether they:
a) Originated outside the Customs area, landed in the UK and ended.up in the UK, or b) Originated outside the Customs area, landed in the UK and ended.up in the EU, or c) Originated outside the Customs area, landed in the EU and ended.up in the UK, or d) Originated inside the Customs area.
Differential refunds would apply. Then there's the complication of supply chains where value gets added along the way. You would presumably have to check these categories not on the border because that's the whole point of a customs union. There may be incompatibilities with WTO rules and Most Favoured Nation issues with third country tariff agreements. The red tape and fraud would be huge. And all because people don't want to call a customs union for what it is, even though the UK will need to notify this as a customs union to the WTO. Customs unions are actually relatively straightforward things.
Speaking of past by-elections and Debbie Abrahams, I see that she was the one who replaced Phil Woolas in Oldham East and Saddleworth. The LD story there is even sadder - from a hair's span from winning the seat in 2010, to an expected large drop in 2015, but down another 9% and now losing their deposit.
Truly incredible news re Iran - Trump announced his decision in a speech, not just in a tweet.
KGN on Channel 4 news getting very fired up about how everybody knows Iran has never supported Al-Qaeda or the Taleban. Seems the truth is far more complicated than that. Feels very odd to be supporting Trump's factuality but this stuff has been in the public domain (and in a lot of respectable and even impeccably liberal sources, though apparently not Channel 4 news!!) for a while now.
Simple Al-Qaeda, the Taleban and the ISIS are hard-core Sunnis [ in fact, of the Wahabi tendency ]. Iran is a Shia country. Arch Sunnis bomb Shia mosques. Geddit ?
Really? Gosh. What a surprise that Pro-European Lords, several of whom have actually worked for the EU, want to stay in the single market.
If the EU paid anyone a £100k a year inflation proof pension for life as the Kinnocks get I expect that might engender a certain loyalty. And of course one condition of keeping said pension is that you must not say anything bad about the EU!
Truly incredible news re Iran - Trump announced his decision in a speech, not just in a tweet.
KGN on Channel 4 news getting very fired up about how everybody knows Iran has never supported Al-Qaeda or the Taleban. Seems the truth is far more complicated than that. Feels very odd to be supporting Trump's factuality but this stuff has been in the public domain (and in a lot of respectable and even impeccably liberal sources, though apparently not Channel 4 news!!) for a while now.
If we have a FTA with the EU with sensible rules of origin the Customs Union issue really becomes a complete irrelevance. A Customs Union is really an adjunct to the SM that we are leaving designed to give it internal and external coherence, something that is not our problem after Brexit. Of course if we don't get a FTA then matters are more complicated but I still don't see why we need a Customs Union, in fact we would not have one in those circumstances.
The Customs Partnership seems a very complicated way of having rules of origin tests for third party goods coming into either the UK or the EU and then being transferred on either as the original goods or as part of some manufactured product. It really should not require that level of complexity.
The UK needs to push for a FTA. This is largely a distraction by those who wish us to remain more closely aligned with the Single Market. Boris is not often right but he is about this.
I thought we wouldn't have to pay anything and they were gagging to offer us FTA. Now it has come down to we have "push" for a FTA.
Let's think it through for a moment. What is a Single Market ? Effectively, a FTA for each member country with the other 27, right ?
So why should they agree to UK having the right of a FTA with none of responsibilities ?
It's like you stop being a member of a club, but still have the right to use the gym and shower afterwards.
A free trade agreement is not the same as a single market or a customs union.
Canada, Mexico, South Africa and Israel amongst many have free trade agreements with the EU. They aren't in the single market or customs union.
But they were not in the single market before. The UK will be leaving the Single Market and wants to have FTA with the 27 without any of its responsibilities.
All of whom are in the pay of the EU. Edit: except Adonis.
I see you edited your comment before I could point out its flaw!
Also when was Hezza paid by the EU?
I think you'll also find the others were formerly paid by the EU and are now in receipt of pensions underwritten by the British government.
Damn, you’re right on Heseltine, I’d thought he was EU trade minister but actually he was UK trade minister.
Are you really sure about that? I would agree we paid his wages but....
Can someone explain to me why Michael Heseltine (net worth circa £200 million) would do the EU's bidding because people incorrectly believe he was once employed by them?
Um. Come on, PB. I had to go onto the Guardian to confirm the Lords *had* voted to stay in the EEA, despite a whipping operation by both the Tories and Labour.
I actually presumed the forces of evilBrexiters would carry the day on this one.
Have the Tories now completely given up any pretence at managing the Lords?
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-
Con 15,910 49.5%, Lab 10,940 34.1% Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%, Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
So much for going after IDS’ seat.
BTW- thanks for the analysis!
There has been some speculation that Labour could gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip. These were Thursday's results (lead candidate only):-
Con 17,529, 60.5%, Lab 8,672, 30.0%, Lib Dem 519, 1.9%, Others 2,220, 7.6%.
That's a swing of 9% to the Conservatives since the general election.
Momentum: winning here!!!
Some caution is required for those who think Labour are doomed under Corbyn because:
1) We saw the difference between Labour support in the 2017 locals and GE.
2) Corbyn voters are not necessarily Labour voters even if there is huge overlap. In a similar way that Trump voters are not always supporting GOP candidates down ballot across the rust belt and farm belt.
3)The demographics in local elections are likely to benefit the Tories over Labour given the huge polarization of voters along age.
1) The Tory vote also vote from the 2017 locals to the GE, it was the LD vote which collapsed
2) Not New Labour voters no but voters for current Labour candidates yes
3) That still does not explain the Tory holds in London which have a younger voting demographic
Labour will go backwards in the next election - not much scope to go forwards. At the last election people thought Labour were a safe repository for their protest vote as they would get nowhere near power according to the polls, and also they were not keen on May's vision of a big majority and the associated scope of a Tory government. Next time people will have to think about if they actually want McDonnell causing a run on the pound or Abbott running the home office, and even if they drop behind in the polls their supporters will go on about how the polls were wrong last time and scaring their opponents even more
With respect, you are falling into the trap of treating the electorate as if it were a single rational being. Indivuduals vote, not the electorate. Each will have had his or her own motives for voting as they did.
Um. Come on, PB. I had to go onto the Guardian to confirm the Lords *had* voted to stay in the EEA, despite a whipping operation by both the Tories and Labour.
I actually presumed the forces of evilBrexiters would carry the day on this one.
Have the Tories now completely given up any pretence at managing the Lords?
A bit too worried about managing the Commons at the moment - it doesn't really matter what the Lords pass, it matters whether the Commons will overturn it and dare the Lords to do it again.
If we have a FTA with the EU with sensible rules of origin the Customs Union issue really becomes a complete irrelevance. A Customs Union is really an adjunct to the SM that we are leaving designed to give it internal and external coherence, something that is not our problem after Brexit. Of course if we don't get a FTA then matters are more complicated but I still don't see why we need a Customs Union, in fact we would not have one in those circumstances.
The UK needs to push for a FTA. This is largely a distraction by those who wish us to remain more closely aligned with the Single Market. Boris is not often right but he is about this.
I thought we wouldn't have to pay anything and they were gagging to offer us FTA. Now it has come down to we have "push" for a FTA.
Let's think it through for a moment. What is a Single Market ? Effectively, a FTA for each member country with the other 27, right ?
So why should they agree to UK having the right of a FTA with none of responsibilities ?
It's like you stop being a member of a club, but still have the right to use the gym and shower afterwards.
No, wrong. The single market is a single regulatory regime. Its parameters are described by the European treaties and it's enforced by a court: the European Court of Justice. That's why the EU spews out so many directives and regulations. So it regulates everything exactly the same. Theoretically, there are no bounds to the scope of a single market. For example, taxes, languages, licensing requirements for professionals, minimum wages, common law v. civil law traditions, culture, all constitute national "barriers" to completion of it and total economic integration. And, indeed, at the time of Brexit the EU was pursuing capital markets union and a level of fiscal union, and seriously considering social union as well as further political union.
It's quite different to a free-trade agreement (an FTA) which is simply an agreement between states to remove tariffs on intra-border trade. Rules of origin are needed to ensure there is no tariff evasion of third parties via that FTA. A FTA agreement says nothing on unifying customs arrangements (which would then require collective decision making on customs and tariffs) nor on regulations (which would then require treaties, courts and voting weights etc).
An FTA *may* consider non-tariff barriers too (which is where things get more complicated) including regulatory equivalence, mutual recognition of standards, with an agreed dispute resolution method, such as an investor-state dispute settlement structure. Those are to stop either state violating the terms of any FTA, and are negotiated bilaterally within in its agreed scope.
If we have a FTA with the EU with sensible rules of origin the Customs Union issue really becomes a complete irrelevance. A Customs Union is really an adjunct to the SM that we are leaving designed to give it internal and external coherence, something that is not our problem after Brexit. Of course if we don't get a FTA then matters are more complicated but I still don't see why we need a Customs Union, in fact we would not have one in those circumstances.
The Customs Partnership seems a very complicated way of having rules of origin tests for third party goods coming into either the UK or the EU and then being transferred on either as the original goods or as part of some manufactured product. It really should not require that level of complexity.
The UK needs to push for a FTA. This is largely a distraction by those who wish us to remain more closely aligned with the Single Market. Boris is not often right but he is about this.
A customs union is not an irrelevance. It's the only way to avoid rules of origin tests and potential tariffs on all goods passing between the UK and the EU. Apart from the Irish border issue, those RoO checks will kill any supply chain manufacturing in the UK such as automotive manufacturing.
A customs union should also help retain a large part of the existing set of treaties with third countries, leading to a smaller degradation compared with EU membership than trying to set up our own treaties from scratch.
Labour will go backwards in the next election - not much scope to go forwards. At the last election people thought Labour were a safe repository for their protest vote as they would get nowhere near power according to the polls, and also they were not keen on May's vision of a big majority and the associated scope of a Tory government. Next time people will have to think about if they actually want McDonnell causing a run on the pound or Abbott running the home office, and even if they drop behind in the polls their supporters will go on about how the polls were wrong last time and scaring their opponents even more
With respect, you are falling into the trap of treating the electorate as if it were a single rational being. Indivuduals vote, not the electorate. Each will have had his or her own motives for voting as they did.
That's some admission! I never thought I'd see a post from you that implied people who vote Labour are irrational...
I am staggered the Lords went for the EEA. It just goes to show the high stakes being played.
Tonight, May faces a divided party, a Foreign Secretary threatening resignation (supported by the leading voice of the backbench), and the Lords in full-scale revolt.
Yes, Richard you certainly did support the Norway option. You are also pro-immigration [ though I am not sure if that was limited to skilled workers only. ] Very unusual for a Leaver though it does not have to be.
Funnily enough, Hannan and Farage were also in favour of the EEA then - surprisingly not now.
Farage seems to support whatever will get him noticed. Hannan I am disappointed with if he is now saying he is not in favour of the EEA. He has written books about how he supports that way forward.
On your question of immigration, like Robert Smithson I am in principle in favour of completely free migration to and from the country with controls only for those who are a danger through criminal or security issues. I think Robert tends to qualify this somewhat so I would not quote me necessarily on his views but I think the main difference between us is I am in favour of it in practice as well as principle.
I would however only extend benefits and things such as the free NHS to those born here (or abroad to British parents) or those who chose to become British citizens (with provision for students or those we have accepted on humanitarian grounds). Everyone else should be free to live and work here but should pay directly for services.
Obviously what I have written here is only a rough overview and there would be all sorts of caveats but the basic position is one of absolute freedom of movement.
Um. Come on, PB. I had to go onto the Guardian to confirm the Lords *had* voted to stay in the EEA, despite a whipping operation by both the Tories and Labour.
I actually presumed the forces of evilBrexiters would carry the day on this one.
Have the Tories now completely given up any pretence at managing the Lords?
A bit too worried about managing the Commons at the moment - it doesn't really matter what the Lords pass, it matters whether the Commons will overturn it and dare the Lords to do it again.
I see the Duke of Wellington was one of the Tory rebels on the EEA vote... could this be May's Waterloo?
By 1993 Europe will be our home market. That means that we won't just be exporting to eleven other countries. We will be doing business in a single domestic market.
Getting to grips with that basic proposition will mean a major re-think, for companies of every size: —it means looking afresh at all your plans and priorities: —it means searching out opportunities to sell to new customers, and develop new products; —it means looking at what your competitors are doing, both British and in the other Member States; —it means considering all the options for doing business, including joint ventures, acquisitions, establishing local outlets, as well as exporting in the traditional sense.
Above all, it means a positive attitude of mind: a decision to go all out to make a success of the single market.
Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
Ah the voice of sweet reason.
Ain’t gonna happen though of course.
And according to Tyndall it’s all the EU’s fault.
Ah. Topping resorting to outright lies again. Things must be back to normal.
Listen it’s not what you wanted, you wanted some Fantasy Island tailor made Brexit that only existed, if you’d thought a moment about it, in your head.
As it stands, it’s a god awful mess and about to do your country huge damage. And you’d get more respect if you manned the fuck up and admitted it.
Ah yet more lies. You are really outdoing yourself this evening. What I wanted - and still want - was the Norway option. It certainly wasn't a fantasy nor tailor made. Now I have accepted it is not going to happen because of the way in which May has interpreted the vote but it was certainly perfectly feasible.
So, just like your claim I was blaming the EU for everything (In fact I have put much of the blame at the feet of May) this is yet another of your outright lies. It really is very childish of you.
What a dolt. With the Brexit-o-loons around, achieving the Norway option was never going to be possible.
Not by May, not by Cameron, not by anyone.
That this was transparently obvious to everyone apart from you is I suppose not surprising. But even so, such political naivety on your part on a political website is a thing to behold.
And yet it is where we may still end up. Ready to apologise for your lies yet since you seem so keen to disown them?
Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
Cyclefree for PM.
...Except for the weird chocolate phobia, of course.
I am staggered the Lords went for the EEA. It just goes to show the high stakes being played.
Tonight, May faces a divided party, a Foreign Secretary threatening resignation (supported by the leading voice of the backbench), and the Lords in full-scale revolt.
We haven’t seen anything like this since Iraq.
Well, the outcome in Iraq was that the Leader of the Opposition was removed, the foreign regime we were attacking collapsed, the Prime Minister won a third consecutive election, and almost all the actual killing and carnage took place a long way off.
At risk of sounding callous, those are (with the exception of the last one which I hope is not going to happen at all) all considerably better than the outcomes I was expecting when I heard we'd voted to leave.
Yes, Richard you certainly did support the Norway option. You are also pro-immigration [ though I am not sure if that was limited to skilled workers only. ] Very unusual for a Leaver though it does not have to be.
Funnily enough, Hannan and Farage were also in favour of the EEA then - surprisingly not now.
Farage seems to support whatever will get him noticed. Hannan I am disappointed with if he is now saying he is not in favour of the EEA. He has written books about how he supports that way forward.
On your question of immigration, like Robert Smithson I am in principle in favour of completely free migration to and from the country with controls only for those who are a danger through criminal or security issues. I think Robert tends to qualify this somewhat so I would not quote me necessarily on his views but I think the main difference between us is I am in favour of it in practice as well as principle.
I would however only extend benefits and things such as the free NHS to those born here (or abroad to British parents) or those who chose to become British citizens (with provision for students or those we have accepted on humanitarian grounds). Everyone else should be free to live and work here but should pay directly for services.
Obviously what I have written here is only a rough overview and there would be all sorts of caveats but the basic position is one of absolute freedom of movement.
Is there a country on Earth with “absolute freedom of movement”?
To be honest, it discredits every word you write. It’s “easy” being an ideologue - you don’t need to make petty compromises with real people.
By 1993 Europe will be our home market. That means that we won't just be exporting to eleven other countries. We will be doing business in a single domestic market.
Getting to grips with that basic proposition will mean a major re-think, for companies of every size: —it means looking afresh at all your plans and priorities: —it means searching out opportunities to sell to new customers, and develop new products; —it means looking at what your competitors are doing, both British and in the other Member States; —it means considering all the options for doing business, including joint ventures, acquisitions, establishing local outlets, as well as exporting in the traditional sense.
Above all, it means a positive attitude of mind: a decision to go all out to make a success of the single market.
If we have a FTA with the EU with sensible rules of origin the Customs Union issue really becomes a complete irrelevance. A Customs Union is really an adjunct to the SM that we are leaving designed to give it internal and external coherence, something that is not our problem after Brexit. Of course if we don't get a FTA then matters are more complicated but I still don't see why we need a Customs Union, in fact we would not have one in those circumstances.
The Customs Partnership seems a very complicated way of having rules of origin tests for third party goods coming into either the UK or the EU and then being transferred on either as the original goods or as part of some manufactured product. It really should not require that level of complexity.
The UK needs to push for a FTA. This is largely a distraction by those who wish us to remain more closely aligned with the Single Market. Boris is not often right but he is about this.
I thought we wouldn't have to pay anything and they were gagging to offer us FTA. Now it has come down to we have "push" for a FTA.
Let's think it through for a moment. What is a Single Market ? Effectively, a FTA for each member country with the other 27, right ?
So why should they agree to UK having the right of a FTA with none of responsibilities ?
It's like you stop being a member of a club, but still have the right to use the gym and shower afterwards.
A free trade agreement is not the same as a single market or a customs union.
Canada, Mexico, South Africa and Israel amongst many have free trade agreements with the EU. They aren't in the single market or customs union.
Strictly speaking, the Treaty of the European Union is notified to the WTO as a hybrid FTA and customs union. The Single Market isn't formally a thing.
Labour will go backwards in the next election - not much scope to go forwards. At the last election people thought Labour were a safe repository for their protest vote as they would get nowhere near power according to the polls, and also they were not keen on May's vision of a big majority and the associated scope of a Tory government. Next time people will have to think about if they actually want McDonnell causing a run on the pound or Abbott running the home office, and even if they drop behind in the polls their supporters will go on about how the polls were wrong last time and scaring their opponents even more
With respect, you are falling into the trap of treating the electorate as if it were a single rational being. Indivuduals vote, not the electorate. Each will have had his or her own motives for voting as they did.
That's some admission! I never thought I'd see a post from you that implied people who vote Labour are irrational...
Haha.
I personally decided I was going to vote a bit against May to stop her having a huge majority but not so much for Labour as to let Jezza in. So I split my vote 42% Tory, 40% Labour and spread the rest amongst the other parties. Looks like everyone else did the same.
I'd definitely back the LDs in Lewisham East. Most Tories will vote for them because they know they can't win the seat these days as they could in the 1980s.
I am staggered the Lords went for the EEA. It just goes to show the high stakes being played.
Tonight, May faces a divided party, a Foreign Secretary threatening resignation (supported by the leading voice of the backbench), and the Lords in full-scale revolt.
We haven’t seen anything like this since Iraq.
The Lords vote will be overturned, even Corbyn opposes staying in the EEA let alone May and working class Leave voters will be furious if free movement is left permanently in place.
If there is a defeat for the government it will be on staying in a version of the Customs Union which Corbyn supports and where there may be enough Tory rebels in the Lords and Commons alongside Labour and the LDs and the nationalists to defeat the government
Um. Come on, PB. I had to go onto the Guardian to confirm the Lords *had* voted to stay in the EEA, despite a whipping operation by both the Tories and Labour.
I actually presumed the forces of evilBrexiters would carry the day on this one.
Have the Tories now completely given up any pretence at managing the Lords?
The Lords is completely unrepresentative because the Lib Dems have so many lifetime appointments due to a brief period of popularity. No advocate of fairness can possibly justify its composition and resulting huge Europhile bias.
At least it makes clear how elitism is still at the heart of Remainism.
All of whom are in the pay of the EU. Edit: except Adonis.
I see you edited your comment before I could point out its flaw!
Also when was Hezza paid by the EU?
I think you'll also find the others were formerly paid by the EU and are now in receipt of pensions underwritten by the British government.
According to the EU itself since 2009 all EU pensions have been paid directly from the EU budget. This applies to both MEPS and appointees such as Commissioners.
Yes, Richard you certainly did support the Norway option. You are also pro-immigration [ though I am not sure if that was limited to skilled workers only. ] Very unusual for a Leaver though it does not have to be.
Funnily enough, Hannan and Farage were also in favour of the EEA then - surprisingly not now.
Farage seems to support whatever will get him noticed. Hannan I am disappointed with if he is now saying he is not in favour of the EEA. He has written books about how he supports that way forward.
On your question of immigration, like Robert Smithson I am in principle in favour of completely free migration to and from the country with controls only for those who are a danger through criminal or security issues. I think Robert tends to qualify this somewhat so I would not quote me necessarily on his views but I think the main difference between us is I am in favour of it in practice as well as principle.
I would however only extend benefits and things such as the free NHS to those born here (or abroad to British parents) or those who chose to become British citizens (with provision for students or those we have accepted on humanitarian grounds). Everyone else should be free to live and work here but should pay directly for services.
Obviously what I have written here is only a rough overview and there would be all sorts of caveats but the basic position is one of absolute freedom of movement.
Is there a country on Earth with “absolute freedom of movement”?
To be honest, it discredits every word you write. It’s “easy” being an ideologue - you don’t need to make petty compromises with real people.
Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there...again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
Ah the voice of sweet reason.
Ain’t gonna happen though of course.
And according to Tyndall it’s all the EU’s fault.
Ah. Topping resorting to outright lies again. Things must be back to normal.
Listen it’s not what you wanted, you wanted some Fantasy Island tailor made Brexit that only existed, if you’d thought a moment about it, in your head.
As it stands, it’s a god awful mess and about to do your country huge damage. And you’d get more respect if you manned the fuck up and admitted it.
Ah yet more lies. You are really outdoing yourself this evening. What I wanted - and still want - was the Norway option. It certainly wasn't a fantasy nor tailor made. Now I have accepted it is not going to happen because of the way in which May has interpreted the vote but it was certainly perfectly feasible.
So, just like your claim I was blaming the EU for everything (In fact I have put much of the blame at the feet of May) this is yet another of your outright lies. It really is very childish of you.
Yes, Richard you certainly did support the Norway option. You are also pro-immigration [ though I am not sure if that was limited to skilled workers only. ] Very unusual for a Leaver though it does not have to be.
Funnily enough, Hannan and Farage were also in favour of the EEA then - surprisingly not now.
Richard is, in some respects, typical of leavers.
He has his own idiosyncratic views, held by a subset of those who voted leave, and believes he speaks for the majority of the electorate.
Um. Come on, PB. I had to go onto the Guardian to confirm the Lords *had* voted to stay in the EEA, despite a whipping operation by both the Tories and Labour.
I actually presumed the forces of evilBrexiters would carry the day on this one.
Have the Tories now completely given up any pretence at managing the Lords?
The Lords is completely unrepresentative because the Lib Dems have so many lifetime appointments due to a brief period of popularity. No advocate of fairness can possibly justify its composition and resulting huge Europhile bias.
At least it makes clear how elitism is still at the heart of Remainism.
Rees-Mogg and Boris are presumably part of some other elite?
Um. Come on, PB. I had to go onto the Guardian to confirm the Lords *had* voted to stay in the EEA, despite a whipping operation by both the Tories and Labour.
I actually presumed the forces of evilBrexiters would carry the day on this one.
Have the Tories now completely given up any pretence at managing the Lords?
The Lords is completely unrepresentative because the Lib Dems have so many lifetime appointments due to a brief period of popularity. No advocate of fairness can possibly justify its composition and resulting huge Europhile bias.
At least it makes clear how elitism is still at the heart of Remainism.
Did you know the LDs only have 12.5% rep in the Lords?
Um. Come on, PB. I had to go onto the Guardian to confirm the Lords *had* voted to stay in the EEA, despite a whipping operation by both the Tories and Labour.
I actually presumed the forces of evilBrexiters would carry the day on this one.
Have the Tories now completely given up any pretence at managing the Lords?
The Lords is completely unrepresentative because the Lib Dems have so many lifetime appointments due to a brief period of popularity. No advocate of fairness can possibly justify its composition and resulting huge Europhile bias.
At least it makes clear how elitism is still at the heart of Remainism.
Rees-Mogg and Boris are presumably part of some other elite?
Yes, Richard you certainly did support the Norway option. You are also pro-immigration [ though I am not sure if that was limited to skilled workers only. ] Very unusual for a Leaver though it does not have to be.
Funnily enough, Hannan and Farage were also in favour of the EEA then - surprisingly not now.
Farage seems to support whatever will get him noticed. Hannan I am disappointed with if he is now saying he is not in favour of the EEA. He has written books about how he supports that way forward.
On your question of immigration, like Robert Smithson I am in principle in favour of completely free migration to and from the country with controls only for those who are a danger through criminal or security issues. I think Robert tends to qualify this somewhat so I would not quote me necessarily on his views but I think the main difference between us is I am in favour of it in practice as well as principle.
I would however only extend benefits and things such as the free NHS to those born here (or abroad to British parents) or those who chose to become British citizens (with provision for students or those we have accepted on humanitarian grounds). Everyone else should be free to live and work here but should pay directly for services.
Obviously what I have written here is only a rough overview and there would be all sorts of caveats but the basic position is one of absolute freedom of movement.
Is there a country on Earth with “absolute freedom of movement”?
To be honest, it discredits every word you write. It’s “easy” being an ideologue - you don’t need to make petty compromises with real people.
No there isn't. Nor is it something I think will ever happen. But that doesn't stop it being an ideal. Politics like everything else is about taking up positions and then pulling in your direction. You will almost never end up with exactly what you want but if you accept you will have to compromise then you might as well start at the pure version of your beliefs and then compromise from there rather than compromising before you even get into the negotiation.
Besides, absolute freedom of movement is exactly what we are supposed to have within the EU. If you accept it for 740 million people you are already half way to my position already.
Um. Come on, PB. I had to go onto the Guardian to confirm the Lords *had* voted to stay in the EEA, despite a whipping operation by both the Tories and Labour.
I actually presumed the forces of evilBrexiters would carry the day on this one.
Have the Tories now completely given up any pretence at managing the Lords?
The Lords is completely unrepresentative because the Lib Dems have so many lifetime appointments due to a brief period of popularity. No advocate of fairness can possibly justify its composition and resulting huge Europhile bias.
At least it makes clear how elitism is still at the heart of Remainism.
Rees-Mogg and Boris are presumably part of some other elite?
The elites are not united on Brexit.
Elite is fast becoming shorthand for 'people who disagree with me'.
All of whom are in the pay of the EU. Edit: except Adonis.
I see you edited your comment before I could point out its flaw!
Also when was Hezza paid by the EU?
I think you'll also find the others were formerly paid by the EU and are now in receipt of pensions underwritten by the British government.
According to the EU itself since 2009 all EU pensions have been paid directly from the EU budget. This applies to both MEPS and appointees such as Commissioners.
Does that include previous office holders or only people who retired after that date?
Truly incredible news re Iran - Trump announced his decision in a speech, not just in a tweet.
KGN on Channel 4 news getting very fired up about how everybody knows Iran has never supported Al-Qaeda or the Taleban. Seems the truth is far more complicated than that. Feels very odd to be supporting Trump's factuality but this stuff has been in the public domain (and in a lot of respectable and even impeccably liberal sources, though apparently not Channel 4 news!!) for a while now.
Simple Al-Qaeda, the Taleban and the ISIS are hard-core Sunnis [ in fact, of the Wahabi tendency ]. Iran is a Shia country. Arch Sunnis bomb Shia mosques. Geddit ?
Yep, this is the simplistic logic that KGM presumably thought he was being oh-so-clever in applying. But the dynamics are more complicated than that - as anyone would be aware had they heard tell of how the various organs of the Pakistani state double-deal with the Taleban (which is rather better publicised than Iran's or Russia's tendrils in Afghanistan). The best players of the Great Game know how to back all sides.
(Incidentally, as one of my linked articles makes clear but I believe was well known - I'd certainly been aware of it for years - one of the main criticisms ISIL had of AQ was that AQ was "soft on Shia", partly because AQ-central was reticent about attacking Iranian targets and tried to hold back affiliates who wanted to.)
Um. Come on, PB. I had to go onto the Guardian to confirm the Lords *had* voted to stay in the EEA, despite a whipping operation by both the Tories and Labour.
I actually presumed the forces of evilBrexiters would carry the day on this one.
Have the Tories now completely given up any pretence at managing the Lords?
The Lords is completely unrepresentative because the Lib Dems have so many lifetime appointments due to a brief period of popularity. No advocate of fairness can possibly justify its composition and resulting huge Europhile bias.
At least it makes clear how elitism is still at the heart of Remainism.
Did you know the LDs only have 12.5% rep in the Lords?
Looks like they were the only party to demonstrate unity in the EEA vote...
Um. Come on, PB. I had to go onto the Guardian to confirm the Lords *had* voted to stay in the EEA, despite a whipping operation by both the Tories and Labour.
I actually presumed the forces of evilBrexiters would carry the day on this one.
Have the Tories now completely given up any pretence at managing the Lords?
The Lords is completely unrepresentative because the Lib Dems have so many lifetime appointments due to a brief period of popularity. No advocate of fairness can possibly justify its composition and resulting huge Europhile bias.
At least it makes clear how elitism is still at the heart of Remainism.
Rees-Mogg and Boris are presumably part of some other elite?
The elites are not united on Brexit.
Elite is fast becoming shorthand for 'people who disagree with me'.
If has been for a long time.
It's just politics - Boris talks like he isn't of the elite, Farage and Corbyn act like they are not professional politicians (albeit in different styles), Jeb Bush said he was an outsider. On Brexit there are clearly senior people in politics, media, business etc who do support it - even if they are outnumbered in those fields, there is plenty of support to be found for it, so it is not a case of elites vs non elites.
He has his own idiosyncratic views, held by a subset of those who voted leave, and believes he speaks for the majority of the electorate.
Note the frequent use of “we”...
A posting which ignores the fact I have long accepted (and posted on here regularly) that my preferred option will probably not happen because of the issue of freedom of movement. Indeed in the very thread you have posted into I said "I have accepted it is not going to happen because of the way in which May has interpreted the vote but it was certainly perfectly feasible."
So please do not ascribe views to me that I do not hold.
All of whom are in the pay of the EU. Edit: except Adonis.
I see you edited your comment before I could point out its flaw!
Also when was Hezza paid by the EU?
I think you'll also find the others were formerly paid by the EU and are now in receipt of pensions underwritten by the British government.
According to the EU itself since 2009 all EU pensions have been paid directly from the EU budget. This applies to both MEPS and appointees such as Commissioners.
Does that include previous office holders or only people who retired after that date?
It says that all previous pension schemes will be phased out so I assume it applies to all. Not certain though.
Yes, Richard you certainly did support the Norway option. You are also pro-immigration [ though I am not sure if that was limited to skilled workers only. ] Very unusual for a Leaver though it does not have to be.
Funnily enough, Hannan and Farage were also in favour of the EEA then - surprisingly not now.
Farage seems to support whatever will get him noticed. Hannan I am disappointed with if he is now saying he is not in favour of the EEA. He has written books about how he supports that way forward.
On your question of immigration, like Robert Smithson I am in principle in favour of completely free migration to and from the country with controls only for those who are a danger through criminal or security issues. I think Robert tends to qualify this somewhat so I would not quote me necessarily on his views but I think the main difference between us is I am in favour of it in practice as well as principle.
I would however only extend benefits and things such as the free NHS to those born here (or abroad to British parents) or those who chose to become British citizens (with provision for students or those we have accepted on humanitarian grounds). Everyone else should be free to live and work here but should pay directly for services.
Obviously what I have written here is only a rough overview and there would be all sorts of caveats but the basic position is one of absolute freedom of movement.
Is there a country on Earth with “absolute freedom of movement”?
To be honest, it discredits every word you write. It’s “easy” being an ideologue - you don’t need to make petty compromises with real people.
No there isn't. Nor is it something I think will ever happen. But that doesn't stop it being an ideal. Politics like everything else is about taking up positions and then pulling in your direction. You will almost never end up with exactly what you want but if you accept you will have to compromise then you might as well start at the pure version of your beliefs and then compromise from there rather than compromising before you even get into the negotiation.
Besides, absolute freedom of movement is exactly what we are supposed to have within the EU. If you accept it for 740 million people you are already half way to my position already.
The population of the EU is 511 million, not 740 million.
Yes, Richard you certainly did support the Norway option. You are also pro-immigration [ though I am not sure if that was limited to skilled workers only. ] Very unusual for a Leaver though it does not have to be.
Funnily enough, Hannan and Farage were also in favour of the EEA then - surprisingly not now.
Farage seems to support whatever will get him noticed. Hannan I am disappointed with if he is now saying he is not in favour of the EEA. He has written books about how he supports that way forward.
On your question of immigration, like Robert Smithson I am in principle in favour of completely free migration to and from the country with controls only for those who are a danger through criminal or security issues. I think Robert tends to qualify this somewhat so I would not quote me necessarily on his views but I think the main difference between us is I am in favour of it in practice as well as principle.
I would however only extend benefits and things such as the free NHS to those born here (or abroad to British parents) or those who chose to become British citizens (with provision for students or those we have accepted on humanitarian grounds). Everyone else should be free to live and work here but should pay directly for services.
Obviously what I have written here is only a rough overview and there would be all sorts of caveats but the basic position is one of absolute freedom of movement.
Is there a country on Earth with “absolute freedom of movement”?
To be honest, it discredits every word you write. It’s “easy” being an ideologue - you don’t need to make petty compromises with real people.
No there isn't. Nor is it something I think will ever happen. But that doesn't stop it being an ideal. Politics like everything else is about taking up positions and then pulling in your direction. You will almost never end up with exactly what you want but if you accept you will have to compromise then you might as well start at the pure version of your beliefs and then compromise from there rather than compromising before you even get into the negotiation.
Besides, absolute freedom of movement is exactly what we are supposed to have within the EU. If you accept it for 740 million people you are already half way to my position already.
The population of the EU is 511 million, not 740 million.
Um. Come on, PB. I had to go onto the Guardian to confirm the Lords *had* voted to stay in the EEA, despite a whipping operation by both the Tories and Labour.
I actually presumed the forces of evilBrexiters would carry the day on this one.
Have the Tories now completely given up any pretence at managing the Lords?
The Lords is completely unrepresentative because the Lib Dems have so many lifetime appointments due to a brief period of popularity. No advocate of fairness can possibly justify its composition and resulting huge Europhile bias.
At least it makes clear how elitism is still at the heart of Remainism.
There are 782 members of the Lords of which 98 are LDs so your assertion is not correct. On PB it is best to check statements for their factual accuracy before posting.
All of whom are in the pay of the EU. Edit: except Adonis.
I see you edited your comment before I could point out its flaw!
Also when was Hezza paid by the EU?
I think you'll also find the others were formerly paid by the EU and are now in receipt of pensions underwritten by the British government.
According to the EU itself since 2009 all EU pensions have been paid directly from the EU budget. This applies to both MEPS and appointees such as Commissioners.
Does that include previous office holders or only people who retired after that date?
It says that all previous pension schemes will be phased out so I assume it applies to all. Not certain though.
I would have thought 'phased out' means 'will be used from now on and will become dominant as previous pension holders snuff it.' Otherwise it would be unnecessarily complicated. Unless of course it's part of a stealth operation to take over all nation state expenditure.
Yes, Richard you certainly did support the Norway option. You are also pro-immigration [ though I am not sure if that was limited to skilled workers only. ] Very unusual for a Leaver though it does not have to be.
Funnily enough, Hannan and Farage were also in favour of the EEA then - surprisingly not now.
Farage seems to support whatever will get him noticed. Hannan I am disappointed with if he is now saying he is not in favour of the EEA. He has written books about how he supports that way forward.
On your question of immigration, like Robert Smithson I am in principle in favour of completely free migration to and from the country with controls only for those who are a danger through criminal or security issues. I think Robert tends to qualify this somewhat so I would not quote me necessarily on his views but I think the main difference between us is I am in favour of it in practice as well as principle.
I would however only extend benefits and things such as the free NHS to those born here (or abroad to British parents) or those who chose to become British citizens (with provision for students or those we have accepted on humanitarian grounds). Everyone else should be free to live and work here but should pay directly for services.
Obviously what I have written here is only a rough overview and there would be all sorts of caveats but the basic position is one of absolute freedom of movement.
Is there a country on Earth with “absolute freedom of movement”?
To be honest, it discredits every word you write. It’s “easy” being an ideologue - you don’t need to make petty compromises with real people.
No there isn
The population of the EU is 511 million, not 740 million.
Yes, Richard you certainly did support the Norway option. You are also pro-immigration [ though I am not sure if that was limited to skilled workers only. ] Very unusual for a Leaver though it does not have to be.
Funnily enough, Hannan and Farage were also in favour of the EEA then - surprisingly not now.
Farage seems to support whatever will get him noticed. Hannan I am disappointed with if he is now saying he is not in favour of the EEA. He has written books about how he supports that way forward.
On your question of immigration, like Robert Smithson I am in principle in favour of completely free migration to and from the country with controls only for those who are a danger through criminal or security issues. I think Robert tends to qualify this somewhat so I would not quote me necessarily on his views but I think the main difference between us is I am in favour of it in practice as well as principle.
I would however only extend benefits and things such as the free NHS to those born here (or abroad to British parents) or those who chose to become British citizens (with provision for students or those we have accepted on humanitarian grounds). Everyone else should be free to live and work here but should pay directly for services.
Obviously what I have written here is only a rough overview and there would be all sorts of caveats but the basic position is one of absolute freedom of movement.
Is there a country on Earth with “absolute freedom of movement”?
To be honest, it discredits every word you write. It’s “easy” being an ideologue - you don’t need to make petty compromises with real people.
No there isn
The population of the EU is 511 million, not 740 million.
If Swansea v Southampton ends in a draw, which of the two does it suit most? Southampton ahead on goal difference but facing Man City in their last game or Swansea, with already relegated Stoke last up?
Yes, Richard you certainly did support the Norway option. You are also pro-immigration [ though I am not sure if that was limited to skilled workers only. ] Very unusual for a Leaver though it does not have to be.
Funnily enough, Hannan and Farage were also in favour of the EEA then - surprisingly not now.
Farage seems to support whatever will get him noticed. Hannan I am disappointed with if he is now saying he is not in favour of the EEA. He has written books about how he supports that way forward.
On your question of immigration, like Robert Smithson I am in principle in favour of completely free migration to and from the country with controls only for those who are a danger through criminal or security issues. I think Robert tends to qualify this somewhat so I would not quote me necessarily on his views but I think the main difference between us is I am in favour of it in practice as well as principle.
I would however only extend benefits and things such as the free NHS to those born here (or abroad to British parents) or those who chose to become British citizens (with provision for students or those we have accepted on humanitarian grounds). Everyone else should be free to live and work here but should pay directly for services.
Obviously what I have written here is only a rough overview and there would be all sorts of caveats but the basic position is one of absolute freedom of movement.
Is there a country on Earth with “absolute freedom of movement”?
To be honest, it discredits every word you write. It’s “easy” being an ideologue - you don’t need to make petty compromises with real people.
Politics like everything else is about taking up positions and then pulling in your direction.
Um. Come on, PB. I had to go onto the Guardian to confirm the Lords *had* voted to stay in the EEA, despite a whipping operation by both the Tories and Labour.
I actually presumed the forces of evilBrexiters would carry the day on this one.
Have the Tories now completely given up any pretence at managing the Lords?
The Lords is completely unrepresentative because the Lib Dems have so many lifetime appointments due to a brief period of popularity. No advocate of fairness can possibly justify its composition and resulting huge Europhile bias.
At least it makes clear how elitism is still at the heart of Remainism.
There are 782 members of the Lords of which 98 are LDs so your assertion is not correct. On PB it is best to check statements for their factual accuracy before posting.
Nah, I just add 'apparently' to any statements, that way I'm covered if I am wrong. Or just go full Sir Humphrey with 'understanding' things to be true.
If Swansea v Southampton ends in a draw, which of the two does it suit most? Southampton ahead on goal difference but facing Man City in their last game or Swansea, with already relegated Stoke last up?
The stakes are pretty high now. Dominic Grieve said on R4 that he thinks it's the UK's greatest peacetime crisis for 300 years. He's fairly well-qualified to speak on the matter; I'd only guessed that it might be the worst in my lifetime, i.e worse than Suez or Iraq.
OK. So it's apparently greater than the following:
1) The Jacobite Rising of 1744-46
2) The Reform Act of 1832
3) The Chartist petition of 1848
4) The Irish potato famine of 1845-46
5) The Home Rule Crisis 1911-14
6) The Irish Rising, war of independence and civil war of 1916 and 1918-22
7) The Shoreditch Mutiny of 1919
8) The General Strike of 1926
9) The Invergorden Mutiny
10) The Famine of 1948
11) The Ulster Crisis of 1969-74
I think we need to keep a little perspective here, Mr Grieve. Nobody has died as a result of Brexit and unless Juncker crowns his inglorious career of Facism and drunken incompetence by declaring war on us to take revenge for us making him look like the two-bit drug addled failure he is, nobody is going to. One of the more depressing things about Brexit is it leads people I hitherto respected to behave like headless chickens.
What is also faintly disturbing is that some Remainers don't seem to have thought through what they're saying. During he campaign it was, we're a sovereign country and can do as we like within the EU, which is really not terribly important. Now they're saying the sky will fall if we come out because the EU is so powerful, so vital to us and we're inextricably intertwined with it.
12) Failure of Burnley FC to win Champions League 2018.
The stakes are pretty high now. Dominic Grieve said on R4 that he thinks it's the UK's greatest peacetime crisis for 300 years. He's fairly well-qualified to speak on the matter; I'd only guessed that it might be the worst in my lifetime, i.e worse than Suez or Iraq.
OK. So it's apparently greater than the following:
1) The Jacobite Rising of 1744-46
2) The Reform Act of 1832
3) The Chartist petition of 1848
4) The Irish potato famine of 1845-46
5) The Home Rule Crisis 1911-14
6) The Irish Rising, war of independence and civil war of 1916 and 1918-22
7) The Shoreditch Mutiny of 1919
8) The General Strike of 1926
9) The Invergorden Mutiny
10) The Famine of 1948
11) The Ulster Crisis of 1969-74
I think we need to keep a little perspective here, Mr Grieve. Nobody has died as a result of Brexit and unless Juncker crowns his inglorious career of Facism and drunken incompetence by declaring war on us to take revenge for us making him look like the two-bit drug addled failure he is, nobody is going to. One of the more depressing things about Brexit is it leads people I hitherto respected to behave like headless chickens.
What is also faintly disturbing is that some Remainers don't seem to have thought through what they're saying. During he campaign it was, we're a sovereign country and can do as we like within the EU, which is really not terribly important. Now they're saying the sky will fall if we come out because the EU is so powerful, so vital to us and we're inextricably intertwined with it.
12) Failure of Burnley FC to win Champions League 2018.
13) The decision of the ECB to sell all cricket rights to Sky?
The stakes are pretty high now. Dominic Grieve said on R4 that he thinks it's the UK's greatest peacetime crisis for 300 years. He's fairly well-qualified to speak on the matter; I'd only guessed that it might be the worst in my lifetime, i.e worse than Suez or Iraq.
OK. So it's apparently greater than the following:
1) The Jacobite Rising of 1744-46
2) The Reform Act of 1832
3) The Chartist petition of 1848
4) The Irish potato famine of 1845-46
5) The Home Rule Crisis 1911-14
6) The Irish Rising, war of independence and civil war of 1916 and 1918-22
7) The Shoreditch Mutiny of 1919
8) The General Strike of 1926
9) The Invergorden Mutiny
10) The Famine of 1948
11) The Ulster Crisis of 1969-74
I think we need to keep a little perspective here, Mr Grieve. Nobody has died as a result of Brexit and unless Juncker crowns his inglorious career of Facism and drunken incompetence by declaring war on us to take revenge for us making him look like the two-bit drug addled failure he is, nobody is going to. One of the more depressing things about Brexit is it leads people I hitherto respected to behave like headless chickens.
What is also faintly disturbing is that some Remainers don't seem to have thought through what they're saying. During he campaign it was, we're a sovereign country and can do as we like within the EU, which is really not terribly important. Now they're saying the sky will fall if we come out because the EU is so powerful, so vital to us and we're inextricably intertwined with it.
12) Failure of Burnley FC to win Champions League 2018.
Ummmm... American independence anyone...
Nah, that wasn't a crisis. Who wants a load of Americans?
Um. Come on, PB. I had to go onto the Guardian to confirm the Lords *had* voted to stay in the EEA, despite a whipping operation by both the Tories and Labour.
I actually presumed the forces of evilBrexiters would carry the day on this one.
Have the Tories now completely given up any pretence at managing the Lords?
The Lords is completely unrepresentative because the Lib Dems have so many lifetime appointments due to a brief period of popularity. No advocate of fairness can possibly justify its composition and resulting huge Europhile bias.
At least it makes clear how elitism is still at the heart of Remainism.
There are 782 members of the Lords of which 98 are LDs so your assertion is not correct. On PB it is best to check statements for their factual accuracy before posting.
Yes, Richard you certainly did support the Norway option. You are also pro-immigration [ though I am not sure if that was limited to skilled workers only. ] Very unusual for a Leaver though it does not have to be.
Funnily enough, Hannan and Farage were also in favour of the EEA then - surprisingly not now.
Farage seems to support whatever will get him noticed. Hannan I am disappointed with if he is now saying he is not in favour of the EEA. He has written books about how he supports that way forward.
On your question of immigration, like Robert Smithson I am in principle in favour of completely free migration to and from the country with controls only for those who are a danger through criminal or security issues. I think Robert tends to qualify this somewhat so I would not quote me necessarily on his views but I think the main difference between us is I am in favour of it in practice as well as principle.
I would however only extend benefits and things such as the free NHS to those born here (or abroad to British parents) or those who chose to become British citizens (with provision for students or those we have accepted on humanitarian grounds). Everyone else should be free to live and work here but should pay directly for services.
Obviously what I have written here is only a rough overview and there would be all sorts of caveats but the basic position is one of absolute freedom of movement.
Is there a country on Earth with “absolute freedom of movement”?
To be honest, it discredits every word you write. It’s “easy” being an ideologue - you don’t need to make petty compromises with real people.
Politics like everything else is about taking up positions and then pulling in your direction.
That's a good way of putting it.
Whether supporting a campaign against free movement of people is the best way of pulling in the direction of free movement of people is another matter...
There has been some speculation that Labour could gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip. These were Thursday's results (lead candidate only):-
Con 17,529, 60.5%, Lab 8,672, 30.0%, Lib Dem 519, 1.9%, Others 2,220, 7.6%.
That's a swing of 9% to the Conservatives since the general election.
Momentum: winning here!!!
Some caution is required for those who think Labour are doomed under Corbyn because:
1) We saw the difference between Labour support in the 2017 locals and GE.
2) Corbyn voters are not necessarily Labour voters even if there is huge overlap. In a similar way that Trump voters are not always supporting GOP candidates down ballot across the rust belt and farm belt.
3)The demographics in local elections are likely to benefit the Tories over Labour given the huge polarization of voters along age.
1) The Tory vote also vote from the 2017 locals to the GE, it was the LD vote which collapsed
2) Not New Labour voters no but voters for current Labour candidates yes
3) That still does not explain the Tory holds in London which have a younger voting demographic
Labour will go backwards in the next election - not much scope to go forwards. At the last election people thought Labour were a safe repository for their protest vote as they would get nowhere near power according to the polls, and also they were not keen on May's vision of a big majority and the associated scope of a Tory government. Next time people will have to think about if they actually want McDonnell causing a run on the pound or Abbott running the home office, and even if they drop behind in the polls their supporters will go on about how the polls were wrong last time and scaring their opponents even more
With respect, you are falling into the trap of treating the electorate as if it were a single rational being. Indivuduals vote, not the electorate. Each will have had his or her own motives for voting as they did.
With respect I am pointing out why they did not vote rationally last time. There was a kind of recency bias which said that in previous election we got told that we would get Ed Milliband puppeteered by Nicola Sturgeon, but labour underperformed the polls. Then when labour were well behind voters could vote against the Tories without thinking their vote would count for anything. I certainly voted against our local Tory MP as much for the candidate I did vote for, and didn't think I would be risking a far left Government with Corbyn in charge.
Um. Come on, PB. I had to go onto the Guardian to confirm the Lords *had* voted to stay in the EEA, despite a whipping operation by both the Tories and Labour.
I actually presumed the forces of evilBrexiters would carry the day on this one.
Have the Tories now completely given up any pretence at managing the Lords?
The Lords is completely unrepresentative because the Lib Dems have so many lifetime appointments due to a brief period of popularity. No advocate of fairness can possibly justify its composition and resulting huge Europhile bias.
At least it makes clear how elitism is still at the heart of Remainism.
Did you know the LDs only have 12.5% rep in the Lords?
Looks like they were the only party to demonstrate unity in the EEA vote...
That's far closer, presumably to the Labour instruction to abstain.
Poor Government whipping though. They should have been able to muster 230-235 against that. Looks like they were ambushed a bit.
If Swansea v Southampton ends in a draw, which of the two does it suit most? Southampton ahead on goal difference but facing Man City in their last game or Swansea, with already relegated Stoke last up?
Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. GetDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
Ah the voice of sweet reason.
Ain’t gonna happen though of course.
And according to Tyndall it’s all the EU’s fault.
Ah. Topping resorting to outright lies again. Things must be back to normal.
Listen it’s not what you wanted, you wanted some Fantasy Island tailor made Brexit that only existed, if you’d thought a moment about it, in your head.
As it stands, it’s a god awful mess and about to do your country huge damage. And you’d get more respect if you manned the fuck up and admitted it.
Ah yet more lies. You are really outdoing yourself this evening. What I wanted - and still want - was the Norway option. It certainly wasn't a fantasy nor tailor made. Now I have accepted it is not going to happen because of the way in which May has interpreted the vote but it was certainly perfectly feasible.
So, just like your claim I was blaming the EU for everything (In fact I have put much of the blame at the feet of May) this is yet another of your outright lies. It really is very childish of you.
What a dolt. With the Brexit-o-loons around, achieving the Norway option was never going to be possible.
Not by May, not by Cameron, not by anyone.
That this was transparently obvious to everyone apart from you is I suppose not surprising. But even so, such political naivety on your part on a political website is a thing to behold.
And yet it is where we may still end up. Ready to apologise for your lies yet since you seem so keen to disown them?
The stakes are pretty high now. Dominic Grieve said on R4 that he thinks it's the UK's greatest peacetime crisis for 300 years. He's fairly well-qualified to speak on the matter; I'd only guessed that it might be the worst in my lifetime, i.e worse than Suez or Iraq.
OK. So it's apparently greater than the following:
1) The Jacobite Rising of 1744-46
2) The Reform Act of 1832
3) The Chartist petition of 1848
4) The Irish potato famine of 1845-46
5) The Home Rule Crisis 1911-14
6) The Irish Rising, war of independence and civil war of 1916 and 1918-22
7) The Shoreditch Mutiny of 1919
8) The General Strike of 1926
9) The Invergorden Mutiny
10) The Famine of 1948
11) The Ulster Crisis of 1969-74
I think we need to keep a little perspective here, Mr Grieve. Nobody has died as a result of Brexit and unless Juncker crowns his inglorious career of Facism and drunken incompetence by declaring war on us to take revenge for us making him look like the two-bit drug addled failure he is, nobody is going to. One of the more depressing things about Brexit is it leads people I hitherto respected to behave like headless chickens.
What is also faintly disturbing is that some Remainers don't seem to have thought through what they're saying. During he campaign it was, we're a sovereign country and can do as we like within the EU, which is really not terribly important. Now they're saying the sky will fall if we come out because the EU is so powerful, so vital to us and we're inextricably intertwined with it.
12) Failure of Burnley FC to win Champions League 2018.
Ummmm... American independence anyone...
The 1974 3-day week ought to be on the list, just saying.
All of whom are in the pay of the EU. Edit: except Adonis.
I see you edited your comment before I could point out its flaw!
Also when was Hezza paid by the EU?
I think you'll also find the others were formerly paid by the EU and are now in receipt of pensions underwritten by the British government.
According to the EU itself since 2009 all EU pensions have been paid directly from the EU budget. This applies to both MEPS and appointees such as Commissioners.
Does that include previous office holders or only people who retired after that date?
It says that all previous pension schemes will be phased out so I assume it applies to all. Not certain though.
I would have thought 'phased out' means 'will be used from now on and will become dominant as previous pension holders snuff it.' Otherwise it would be unnecessarily complicated. Unless of course it's part of a stealth operation to take over all nation state expenditure.
Actually I have just had another look and it says:
"There are a few exceptions to the single statute: MEPs who held a mandate in Parliament before the 2009 elections could opt to keep the previous national system for salary, transitional allowance and pensions, for the entire duration of their membership of the European Parliament."
I think the previous arrangement tied MEPs salaries and pension arrangements to the national equivalent so I assume it would depend on whether or not they got a better deal with the new EU system.
Commissioners are counted as EU Civil Servants and are paid directly from the EU budget. The same applies to their pensions which is paid in addition to any national pension they might have accrued.
If Swansea v Southampton ends in a draw, which of the two does it suit most? Southampton ahead on goal difference but facing Man City in their last game or Swansea, with already relegated Stoke last up?
It suits WBA the most
Yeah yeah, I get that - that's why I asked "which of the two does it suit most?"
But the question looks like it's become redundant now.
Comments
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/05/world/asia/iran-afghanistan-taliban.html
http://www.mei.edu/content/article/io/afghans-see-iran-s-hand-taliban-s-latest-gains-western-afghanistan
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-03/iran-and-al-qaeda-best-of-frenemies
https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-how-al-qaeda-protected-iranuntil-now
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/11/al-qaeda-iran-cia/545576/
I make it a 36% swing for the LDs to win Lewisham East which is huge but it's been done before. The UKIP swing to win Clacton was higher and of course Simon Hughes got a swing of some 44% when he won Southwark & Bermondsey. The LDs got a swing close to 36% in winning Christchurch in 1993 if memory serves.
It's a huge ask and last Thursday's elections emphasise the scale of the task. The LD Mayoral candidate, Chris Maines (could he be the LD candidate ?) came fourth behind the Green with 8%. Labour won with 54%, the Conservative got 13% and the Green 10%. Labour won all 54 seats on Lewisham Council for good measure polling 60% with the Conservatives on 14% and the LDs and Greens on 12% each.
In Southwark, there was a split on the Labour side with a "Real Bermondsey Labour" candidate standing (and outpolling the Conservative). I suppose IF Labour got into a vicious internal conflict leading to two or more candidates, that would help the Opposition parties but that's about all.
Do I think the LDs could come a solid second ? Yes unless the Greens get some local traction early but I still think a 5,000+ majority for Labour on a 35-40% turnout.
a) Originated outside the Customs area, landed in the UK and ended.up in the UK, or
b) Originated outside the Customs area, landed in the UK and ended.up in the EU, or
c) Originated outside the Customs area, landed in the EU and ended.up in the UK, or
d) Originated inside the Customs area.
Differential refunds would apply. Then there's the complication of supply chains where value gets added along the way. You would presumably have to check these categories not on the border because that's the whole point of a customs union. There may be incompatibilities with WTO rules and Most Favoured Nation issues with third country tariff agreements. The red tape and fraud would be huge. And all because people don't want to call a customs union for what it is, even though the UK will need to notify this as a customs union to the WTO. Customs unions are actually relatively straightforward things.
It's not a gimme for Labour if she does.
Is Glenys in there as well ???
God bless the electorate of Oldham East. Forever cursed to keep trooping back to the ballot box...
Lord Mandy is EU funded as well for life.
Do you know what he wants in return?
I have to eat entire pizza that has pineapple on it.
My friends are bastards.
I had to go onto the Guardian to confirm the Lords *had* voted to stay in the EEA, despite a whipping operation by both the Tories and Labour.
I actually presumed the
forces of evilBrexiters would carry the day on this one.Have the Tories now completely given up any pretence at managing the Lords?
It's quite different to a free-trade agreement (an FTA) which is simply an agreement between states to remove tariffs on intra-border trade. Rules of origin are needed to ensure there is no tariff evasion of third parties via that FTA. A FTA agreement says nothing on unifying customs arrangements (which would then require collective decision making on customs and tariffs) nor on regulations (which would then require treaties, courts and voting weights etc).
An FTA *may* consider non-tariff barriers too (which is where things get more complicated) including regulatory equivalence, mutual recognition of standards, with an agreed dispute resolution method, such as an investor-state dispute settlement structure. Those are to stop either state violating the terms of any FTA, and are negotiated bilaterally within in its agreed scope.
Clear?
German crime rate at lowest for 26 years.
A customs union should also help retain a large part of the existing set of treaties with third countries, leading to a smaller degradation compared with EU membership than trying to set up our own treaties from scratch.
Why wouldn't we want to be in a customs union?
It just goes to show the high stakes being played.
Tonight, May faces a divided party, a Foreign Secretary threatening resignation (supported by the leading voice of the backbench), and the Lords in full-scale revolt.
We haven’t seen anything like this since Iraq.
On your question of immigration, like Robert Smithson I am in principle in favour of completely free migration to and from the country with controls only for those who are a danger through criminal or security issues. I think Robert tends to qualify this somewhat so I would not quote me necessarily on his views but I think the main difference between us is I am in favour of it in practice as well as principle.
I would however only extend benefits and things such as the free NHS to those born here (or abroad to British parents) or those who chose to become British citizens (with provision for students or those we have accepted on humanitarian grounds). Everyone else should be free to live and work here but should pay directly for services.
Obviously what I have written here is only a rough overview and there would be all sorts of caveats but the basic position is one of absolute freedom of movement.
By 1993 Europe will be our home market. That means that we won't just be exporting to eleven other countries. We will be doing business in a single domestic market.
Getting to grips with that basic proposition will mean a major re-think, for companies of every size: —it means looking afresh at all your plans and priorities: —it means searching out opportunities to sell to new customers, and develop new products; —it means looking at what your competitors are doing, both British and in the other Member States; —it means considering all the options for doing business, including joint ventures, acquisitions, establishing local outlets, as well as exporting in the traditional sense.
Above all, it means a positive attitude of mind: a decision to go all out to make a success of the single market.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107219
...Except for the weird chocolate phobia, of course.
At risk of sounding callous, those are (with the exception of the last one which I hope is not going to happen at all) all considerably better than the outcomes I was expecting when I heard we'd voted to leave.
To be honest, it discredits every word you write. It’s “easy” being an ideologue - you don’t need to make petty compromises with real people.
Thirty years on and the world is very different.
Including shanty towns and slavery existing now in Britain.
I personally decided I was going to vote a bit against May to stop her having a huge majority but not so much for Labour as to let Jezza in. So I split my vote 42% Tory, 40% Labour and spread the rest amongst the other parties. Looks like everyone else did the same.
If there is a defeat for the government it will be on staying in a version of the Customs Union which Corbyn supports and where there may be enough Tory rebels in the Lords and Commons alongside Labour and the LDs and the nationalists to defeat the government
At least it makes clear how elitism is still at the heart of Remainism.
EDIT: and a large pepperoni pizza with a single pineapple chick meets the specification as written
We'll be eating at a pizza parlour in Manchester known for their generous sizes and halal compliant menu.
(worth a shot?)
He has his own idiosyncratic views, held by a subset of those who voted leave, and believes he speaks for the majority of the electorate.
Note the frequent use of “we”...
Besides, absolute freedom of movement is exactly what we are supposed to have within the EU. If you accept it for 740 million people you are already half way to my position already.
(Incidentally, as one of my linked articles makes clear but I believe was well known - I'd certainly been aware of it for years - one of the main criticisms ISIL had of AQ was that AQ was "soft on Shia", partly because AQ-central was reticent about attacking Iranian targets and tried to hold back affiliates who wanted to.)
It's just politics - Boris talks like he isn't of the elite, Farage and Corbyn act like they are not professional politicians (albeit in different styles), Jeb Bush said he was an outsider. On Brexit there are clearly senior people in politics, media, business etc who do support it - even if they are outnumbered in those fields, there is plenty of support to be found for it, so it is not a case of elites vs non elites.
So please do not ascribe views to me that I do not hold.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/8102195/3-10072017-AP-EN.pdf/a61ce1ca-1efd-41df-86a2-bb495daabdab
(It's shocking to see in that file that Lithuania's population fell by 14 per thousand in ONE YEAR.)
Edited because I had misread the graph. It's still a sharp drop.
But the basic principle still applies.
Interesting
For Ireland and us, the Irish banking crisis and Brexit left us completely stuffed?
Come on Swansea.
Poor Government whipping though. They should have been able to muster 230-235 against that. Looks like they were ambushed a bit.
Desperate stuff, Dicky.
"There are a few exceptions to the single statute: MEPs who held a mandate in Parliament before the 2009 elections could opt to keep the previous national system for salary, transitional allowance and pensions, for the entire duration of their membership of the European Parliament."
I think the previous arrangement tied MEPs salaries and pension arrangements to the national equivalent so I assume it would depend on whether or not they got a better deal with the new EU system.
Commissioners are counted as EU Civil Servants and are paid directly from the EU budget. The same applies to their pensions which is paid in addition to any national pension they might have accrued.
But the question looks like it's become redundant now.