Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What would Labour really do about Brexit?

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited June 10 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What would Labour really do about Brexit?

A few things are obvious to all but the most partisan:

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,764
    The other thing about this is that there's a good chance you'd need the SNP as well. They also want to be in the single market, and presumably they'd be quite happy with the idea of Scotland waiving the migration limits.

    Once you've got that far presumably London wants the same... The ultimate destination is BINO, but without voting rights, and you'll need a visa to work in Clacton.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,609
    Really good article, Nick. Obviously, as always, much would depend on the exact numbers.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 494
    "Nor are we dependent on the DUP, and if a solution drifts towards a united Ireland, we so do not have a problem with that (and nor do most of our voters, however much they voted Leave)."

    Whilst very tempting to ignore Ulster and let a united Ireland happen, a civil war in Ireland would not be acceptable. The Ulster Unionists would not accept a vote for a united Ireland.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,609
    FPT
    Purple said:

    Isabel Oakeshott is maintaining her reputation as Britain's least trustworthy journalist I see. Given how she treats her friends I’d rather be her enemy.

    There's untrustworthiness, and then there's treason.

    Will you amend your position if Arron Banks evades a House of Commons arrest warrant by running to Moscow?
    1) Isabel Oakeshott has form in this area, as Vicky Price would confirm.

    2) Anyone who hadn’t worked out at the time of the referendum that the Kremlin was pushing hard for Brexit was either not paying attention or wilfully turning a blind eye. (It was the catalyst for the coining of “vapid bilge”.). Most Leavers on this site were doing the latter and are still rather evasive about the downsides of pleasing Vladimir Putin.

    3) Isabel Oakeshott has apparently had this information for some time. If it is evidence of treason (a word I would much prefer to avoid being used without the most compelling evidence) then she doesn’t seem to have been all that bothered by it. She has only released her statement now by force of events.

    4) I await with interest Lord Ashcroft’s comments on this, given he is apparently involved with this book and he seems to be well in with the Leave.EU gang. Silence will also be interesting.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,968
    Also every free nation fights hard over the jurisdiction of the courts of reference. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. But @NickPalmer doesn’t even seem to care. Weird.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,434
    Thanks Nick for an interesting insight into Labour BREXIT fault lines and potential sticking plasters.

    That said I would contend that Labour only requires the appearance of a coherent position as the government is in utter disarray on the issue. The Conservatives limp from one fiasco to the next leaving in their wake confusion, disunity and the voters left in bemusement as to where the nation is going.

    The old adage of not interrupting your enemies as they engage in self destruction is clearly apposite. BREXIT has given the Tory government a severe case of the shits and they are now serial political public poopers. What a mess !!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44395861

  • daodaodaodao Posts: 637
    edited June 10
    Interesting perspective. However, it is important that while there needs to be some sort of relationship between the UK and the EU, it is at arm's length. Therefore, it is important that the UK is completely free from the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and other legal entanglements, such as the European Arrest Warrant.

    Peter Hitchens stated today (in his MoS blog): "The EU is not Europe, but the continuation of Germany by other means. It is a rather brutal and arrogant mechanism, not necessarily bringing prosperity, as Greece has discovered in detail. Its expansionism has brought war to Yugoslavia and Ukraine, and may yet cause more violence."
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,648
    edited June 10
    Dr P,


    So the EU will allow the UK to change the FOM rules? Thus opening the floodgates for the other countries to change too. That is one of their red lines, surely?

    Do you really believe that?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,275
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: will set about writing the pre-race nonsense imminently. Need to check the penalty situation, which could have a few given what happened in Q2 with blocking.

    On-topic: seems a plausible description of what Corbyn might do, given it involves capitulating to the EU on Northern Ireland and the contemptible decision to remain in the customs union. My main problem with it is that May might do the same.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,667
    CD13 said:

    Dr P,


    So the EU will allow the UK to change the FOM rules? Thus opening the floodgates for the other countries to change too. That is one of their red lines, surely?

    He’s talking about being outside of the single market, so that isn’t an issue.

  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    edited June 10
    Corbynites do care about immigration. They believe we are all citizens of the world and would like to move towards open immigration as much as politically possible. Corbyn himself has said he would like to retain freedom of movement and the last Labour manifesto wanted to remove constraints on family migration. Abbott has also made clear she regards enforcement on illegl immigration immoral.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,764
    edited June 10
    CD13 said:

    So the EU will allow the UK to change the FOM rules? Thus opening the floodgates for the other countries to change too. That is one of their red lines, surely?

    Do you really believe that?

    Yes, but the quid-pro-quo is that you lose some single market privileges, and the things you lose will be things other countries want a piece of, like market access for British banks.

    The overall deal here is that you've lost the ability to vote on the regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense, in exchange for the ability to repatriate some car wash employees, many of whom you could have repatriated anyway. I doubt that the rest will be wanting one too, just don't shout and wave it about.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,648
    Mr b,

    "He’s talking about being outside of the single market, so that isn’t an issue."

    Is he? I think you're talking about GB not the UK to start with, and if that was the case, we can trade with other countries on our own terms?

  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 837
    edited June 10
    JackW said:

    Thanks Nick for an interesting insight into Labour BREXIT fault lines and potential sticking plasters.

    That said I would contend that Labour only requires the appearance of a coherent position as the government is in utter disarray on the issue. The Conservatives limp from one fiasco to the next leaving in their wake confusion, disunity and the voters left in bemusement as to where the nation is going.

    The old adage of not interrupting your enemies as they engage in self destruction is clearly apposite. BREXIT has given the Tory government a severe case of the shits and they are now serial political public poopers. What a mess !!

    The strange thing is that the public don't appear all that concerned, a government is utter disarray wouldn't normally be expected to be enjoying consistent, fairly comfortable, leads in opinion polling.

    In the wake of Black Wednesday the tories shed 10 - 15pts over the next few months, here nothing is happening. Perhaps the wider public aren't tuned in or even all that bothered.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    The other thing about this is that there's a good chance you'd need the SNP as well. They also want to be in the single market, and presumably they'd be quite happy with the idea of Scotland waiving the migration limits.

    Once you've got that far presumably London wants the same... The ultimate destination is BINO, but without voting rights, and you'll need a visa to work in Clacton.

    The EU has made clear they will allow cherry picking for Northern Ireland, but not for anywhere else.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,889
    Corbyn's got a combover. LOL. Not quite McCain spec. but getting there.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 67,569

    FPT

    Purple said:

    Isabel Oakeshott is maintaining her reputation as Britain's least trustworthy journalist I see. Given how she treats her friends I’d rather be her enemy.

    There's untrustworthiness, and then there's treason.

    Will you amend your position if Arron Banks evades a House of Commons arrest warrant by running to Moscow?
    1) Isabel Oakeshott has form in this area, as Vicky Price would confirm.

    2) Anyone who hadn’t worked out at the time of the referendum that the Kremlin was pushing hard for Brexit was either not paying attention or wilfully turning a blind eye. (It was the catalyst for the coining of “vapid bilge”.). Most Leavers on this site were doing the latter and are still rather evasive about the downsides of pleasing Vladimir Putin.

    3) Isabel Oakeshott has apparently had this information for some time. If it is evidence of treason (a word I would much prefer to avoid being used without the most compelling evidence) then she doesn’t seem to have been all that bothered by it. She has only released her statement now by force of events.

    4) I await with interest Lord Ashcroft’s comments on this, given he is apparently involved with this book and he seems to be well in with the Leave.EU gang. Silence will also be interesting.
    On point 3) Isabel Oakeshott admits in this morning’s Sunday Times that she’s a long standing supporter of Brexit.

    That explains it.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    CD13 said:

    So the EU will allow the UK to change the FOM rules? Thus opening the floodgates for the other countries to change too. That is one of their red lines, surely?

    Do you really believe that?

    Yes, but the quid-pro-quo is that you lose some single market privileges, and the things you lose will be things other countries want a piece of, like market access for British banks.

    The overall deal here is that you've lost the ability to vote on the regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense, in exchange for the ability to repatriate some car wash employees, many of whom you could have repatriated anyway. I doubt that the rest will be wanting one too, just don't shout and wave it about.
    "Regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense" is exactly what we had inside the EU. I can't think of a time we got we wanted over the heads of the EU Commission and Germany.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,648
    Mr Tokyo,

    It's not car wash employees who worried the voters of Boston, and I doubt they were much of a factor elsewhere.

    A few snippets from the BBC website just before the referendum … certainly not a pro-Brexit source.

    "Boston is one of the most extreme examples in Britain of a town affected by recent EU immigration. … You can see that in the local pay statistics. Boston has always been a low-pay town. But it is now an exceptionally low-paid place. The average hourly wage nationally is £13.33. Across the East Midlands, it is £12.26. In Boston, it is £9.13. On a weekly basis, full-time earnings are more than £100 a week less than the national average.

    … So 10 single workers may each pay £60 a week to share what was a three-bedroom house, netting the landlords £600 a week. That means a gross rental income from the house of perhaps £30,000 a year. That is much more than local families can afford for those houses - and the housing supply has simply not kept up with demand. Local rents in Boston are actually much higher than in Nottingham despite wages being lower. This is a major problem within the town and has become a major cause of frustration. People living next door to these multiple-occupied homes are also not happy.

    … According to the Annual Population Survey, more than half of the Polish-born adults living in Britain are aged 25-35. And concentrations of young people create their own issues - especially on a Friday night. While young adults tend not to use the NHS much, they do have children. Around 11% of children born in the UK in 2014 had one parent who was an EU migrant. Around half of those had two EU migrant parents. In Boston, the authorities have responded to a sudden rise in demand for children's services - from keeping maternity wards open through to funding more school places. (They were caught unprepared? Like the Spanish Inquisition, no one in Government expected them?)

    Adrian Reed, head of a local school chain, says his schools get £1,000 per head from the public purse for new arrivals with language problems. He said: "In our trust, we have built a team of 10 people with a variety of languages - Polish, Portuguese, etc. They will be in the classroom supporting children... More importantly they support parents." (the article is mostly optimistic, concentrating on the attempts to help, rather than the chaos the Bostonians claim to see. Bless the BBC's cotton socks. But the classrooms remain the same size and no new schools were built)

    The article ends by saying that "Boston has been transformed by the expansion of the European Union to the east."

    No mention of a few car washers!
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,991
    JackW said:

    BREXIT has given the Tory government a severe case of the shits

    With several of them in cabinet.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,764
    Elliot said:

    I can't think of a time we got we wanted over the heads of the EU Commission and Germany.

    That's because you only pay attention to things the British press get outraged about.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,764
    Elliot said:

    The other thing about this is that there's a good chance you'd need the SNP as well. They also want to be in the single market, and presumably they'd be quite happy with the idea of Scotland waiving the migration limits.

    Once you've got that far presumably London wants the same... The ultimate destination is BINO, but without voting rights, and you'll need a visa to work in Clacton.

    The EU has made clear they will allow cherry picking for Northern Ireland, but not for anywhere else.
    The context to that is TMay's red lines, like no FoM.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,667

    JackW said:

    Thanks Nick for an interesting insight into Labour BREXIT fault lines and potential sticking plasters.

    That said I would contend that Labour only requires the appearance of a coherent position as the government is in utter disarray on the issue. The Conservatives limp from one fiasco to the next leaving in their wake confusion, disunity and the voters left in bemusement as to where the nation is going.

    The old adage of not interrupting your enemies as they engage in self destruction is clearly apposite. BREXIT has given the Tory government a severe case of the shits and they are now serial political public poopers. What a mess !!

    The strange thing is that the public don't appear all that concerned, a government is utter disarray wouldn't normally be expected to be enjoying consistent, fairly comfortable, leads in opinion polling.

    In the wake of Black Wednesday the tories shed 10 - 15pts over the next few months, here nothing is happening. Perhaps the wider public aren't tuned in or even all that bothered.
    Of course not. Very few outside political obsessives, and those who have to plan for changes in international trade, will care very much at all until their personal circumstances are affected.

    Black Wednesday came after a period of eye watering interest rates - which caused widespread and significant pain - and demonstrated that they had been completely unnecessary.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,275
    Mr. Johnstone, sometimes there's a strange disconnect between the past and present and polling movements. Some years ago, during Brown's government, the exchange rate collapsed. Portillo, on This Week, said he couldn't work out why it hadn't destroyed the government, as such things had in the past.

    The public seem more volatile than a few decades ago, but also more blasé in some regards.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,443
    Dura_Ace said:

    Corbyn's got a combover. LOL. Not quite McCain spec. but getting there.

    Didn't Cameron have one as well?

    At least if events are hairy, our leaders aren't.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,574
    Nigelb said:

    JackW said:

    Thanks Nick for an interesting insight into Labour BREXIT fault lines and potential sticking plasters.

    That said I would contend that Labour only requires the appearance of a coherent position as the government is in utter disarray on the issue. The Conservatives limp from one fiasco to the next leaving in their wake confusion, disunity and the voters left in bemusement as to where the nation is going.

    The old adage of not interrupting your enemies as they engage in self destruction is clearly apposite. BREXIT has given the Tory government a severe case of the shits and they are now serial political public poopers. What a mess !!

    The strange thing is that the public don't appear all that concerned, a government is utter disarray wouldn't normally be expected to be enjoying consistent, fairly comfortable, leads in opinion polling.

    In the wake of Black Wednesday the tories shed 10 - 15pts over the next few months, here nothing is happening. Perhaps the wider public aren't tuned in or even all that bothered.
    Of course not. Very few outside political obsessives, and those who have to plan for changes in international trade, will care very much at all until their personal circumstances are affected.

    Black Wednesday came after a period of eye watering interest rates - which caused widespread and significant pain - and demonstrated that they had been completely unnecessary.
    Indeed. Only avoided bankruptcy by the skin of my teeth. I’d been drifting Torywards for a bit before but that was a killer.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,417
    Elliot said:

    CD13 said:

    So the EU will allow the UK to change the FOM rules? Thus opening the floodgates for the other countries to change too. That is one of their red lines, surely?

    Do you really believe that?

    Yes, but the quid-pro-quo is that you lose some single market privileges, and the things you lose will be things other countries want a piece of, like market access for British banks.

    The overall deal here is that you've lost the ability to vote on the regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense, in exchange for the ability to repatriate some car wash employees, many of whom you could have repatriated anyway. I doubt that the rest will be wanting one too, just don't shout and wave it about.
    "Regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense" is exactly what we had inside the EU. I can't think of a time we got we wanted over the heads of the EU Commission and Germany.
    Since 1999 the UK lost on 56 votes, and was on the winning side on 2466. As this fact check describes, on many of those votes some UK MEPs and devolved administrations did not take the same view as our commissioners, begging the question of who "we" are in this context. I do not have the figure to hand, but believe that the UK were outvoted less than the Germans,.

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/facts-behind-the-claims-uk-influence-in-the-eu/
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,155
    Foxy said:

    Elliot said:

    CD13 said:

    So the EU will allow the UK to change the FOM rules? Thus opening the floodgates for the other countries to change too. That is one of their red lines, surely?

    Do you really believe that?

    Yes, but the quid-pro-quo is that you lose some single market privileges, and the things you lose will be things other countries want a piece of, like market access for British banks.

    The overall deal here is that you've lost the ability to vote on the regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense, in exchange for the ability to repatriate some car wash employees, many of whom you could have repatriated anyway. I doubt that the rest will be wanting one too, just don't shout and wave it about.
    "Regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense" is exactly what we had inside the EU. I can't think of a time we got we wanted over the heads of the EU Commission and Germany.
    Since 1999 the UK lost on 56 votes, and was on the winning side on 2466. As this fact check describes, on many of those votes some UK MEPs and devolved administrations did not take the same view as our commissioners, begging the question of who "we" are in this context. I do not have the figure to hand, but believe that the UK were outvoted less than the Germans,.

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/facts-behind-the-claims-uk-influence-in-the-eu/
    Fox, how dare you put facts down and ruin the jingoistic crap we get on here from Little Englanders.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,434

    JackW said:

    Thanks Nick for an interesting insight into Labour BREXIT fault lines and potential sticking plasters.

    That said I would contend that Labour only requires the appearance of a coherent position as the government is in utter disarray on the issue. The Conservatives limp from one fiasco to the next leaving in their wake confusion, disunity and the voters left in bemusement as to where the nation is going.

    The old adage of not interrupting your enemies as they engage in self destruction is clearly apposite. BREXIT has given the Tory government a severe case of the shits and they are now serial political public poopers. What a mess !!

    The strange thing is that the public don't appear all that concerned, a government is utter disarray wouldn't normally be expected to be enjoying consistent, fairly comfortable, leads in opinion polling.

    In the wake of Black Wednesday the tories shed 10 - 15pts over the next few months, here nothing is happening. Perhaps the wider public aren't tuned in or even all that bothered.
    My take is that vast swathes of the public are at a complete loss at the abysmal level of competence shown by almost all our politicians.

    The main parties swap marginal poll leads from time to time and the awful revolving door of directionless mediocrity circles the voters hoping to grab an advantage that might translate into something more than a tangential puff of approval.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,434

    JackW said:

    BREXIT has given the Tory government a severe case of the shits

    With several of them in cabinet.
    Chortle .. :smile:
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,417
    A good header by NP.

    In practice, I think the final outcome described is where we will wind up with the Tories too. The biggest difference under a Labour negotiation would be that we would get there in a fairly constructive way. Under the Tories it would be one long tantrum by the Europhobes, then signing on the dotted line.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,838
    Elliot said:

    CD13 said:

    So the EU will allow the UK to change the FOM rules? Thus opening the floodgates for the other countries to change too. That is one of their red lines, surely?

    Do you really believe that?

    Yes, but the quid-pro-quo is that you lose some single market privileges, and the things you lose will be things other countries want a piece of, like market access for British banks.

    The overall deal here is that you've lost the ability to vote on the regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense, in exchange for the ability to repatriate some car wash employees, many of whom you could have repatriated anyway. I doubt that the rest will be wanting one too, just don't shout and wave it about.
    "Regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense" is exactly what we had inside the EU. I can't think of a time we got we wanted over the heads of the EU Commission and Germany.
    Really?

    What about the Financial Services Passport, which benefited small British firms - including my former fund management firm - above big continental banks?

    Now, it might be that we "lost" far more often than we "won", but the single market for financial services was hugely beneficial for smaller UK financial services firms.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,275
    Mr. G, Little Englanders? I do seem to recall you growing annoyed at the term 'Scotch', after which I said I'd not realised it was considered irksome and refrained from using it.

    The term also didn't work very well for Cameron. Not unlike Clinton's 'basket of deplorables'.

    In happier news, I have a bet. F1 ramble should be up fairly soon.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 3,719
    rcs1000 said:

    Elliot said:

    CD13 said:

    So the EU will allow the UK to change the FOM rules? Thus opening the floodgates for the other countries to change too. That is one of their red lines, surely?

    Do you really believe that?

    Yes, but the quid-pro-quo is that you lose some single market privileges, and the things you lose will be things other countries want a piece of, like market access for British banks.

    The overall deal here is that you've lost the ability to vote on the regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense, in exchange for the ability to repatriate some car wash employees, many of whom you could have repatriated anyway. I doubt that the rest will be wanting one too, just don't shout and wave it about.
    "Regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense" is exactly what we had inside the EU. I can't think of a time we got we wanted over the heads of the EU Commission and Germany.
    Really?

    What about the Financial Services Passport, which benefited small British firms - including my former fund management firm - above big continental banks?

    Now, it might be that we "lost" far more often than we "won", but the single market for financial services was hugely beneficial for smaller UK financial services firms.
    How would the passport have benefited smaller firms vs banks? Is it not universal?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,275
    Betting Post

    F1: backed Ricciardo at 5 (5.25) for a podium.

    He only qualified 6th. However, he's had a record of poor qualifying at Canada. The Red Bull also had a significant third sector qualifying deficit due to engine power, but the other teams can't run in the fastest mode throughout the race, so race pace will be closer. The team also starts on the hypersoft, the softest/fastest tyre, which Ferrari/Mercedes can't do because they run through the rubber too quickly.

    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/06/canada-pre-race-2018.html
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,968
    rcs1000 said:

    Elliot said:

    CD13 said:

    So the EU will allow the UK to change the FOM rules? Thus opening the floodgates for the other countries to change too. That is one of their red lines, surely?

    Do you really believe that?

    Yes, but the quid-pro-quo is that you lose some single market privileges, and the things you lose will be things other countries want a piece of, like market access for British banks.

    The overall deal here is that you've lost the ability to vote on the regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense, in exchange for the ability to repatriate some car wash employees, many of whom you could have repatriated anyway. I doubt that the rest will be wanting one too, just don't shout and wave it about.
    "Regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense" is exactly what we had inside the EU. I can't think of a time we got we wanted over the heads of the EU Commission and Germany.
    Really?

    What about the Financial Services Passport, which benefited small British firms - including my former fund management firm - above big continental banks?

    Now, it might be that we "lost" far more often than we "won", but the single market for financial services was hugely beneficial for smaller UK financial services firms.
    So how’s the single market in financial services coming?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 1,981
    Vaguely on topic: A strange symptom of the Brexiteer pathology appears to be an obsession with car washes. Just one of many aspects of the condition that I am far from able to comprehend.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,979
    Foxy said:

    Elliot said:

    CD13 said:

    So the EU will allow the UK to change the FOM rules? Thus opening the floodgates for the other countries to change too. That is one of their red lines, surely?

    Do you really believe that?

    Yes, but the quid-pro-quo is that you lose some single market privileges, and the things you lose will be things other countries want a piece of, like market access for British banks.

    The overall deal here is that you've lost the ability to vote on the regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense, in exchange for the ability to repatriate some car wash employees, many of whom you could have repatriated anyway. I doubt that the rest will be wanting one too, just don't shout and wave it about.
    "Regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense" is exactly what we had inside the EU. I can't think of a time we got we wanted over the heads of the EU Commission and Germany.
    Since 1999 the UK lost on 56 votes, and was on the winning side on 2466. As this fact check describes, on many of those votes some UK MEPs and devolved administrations did not take the same view as our commissioners, begging the question of who "we" are in this context. I do not have the figure to hand, but believe that the UK were outvoted less than the Germans,.

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/facts-behind-the-claims-uk-influence-in-the-eu/
    The probable practical difference between being a member and a non member is that we while we still do what we are told, it will apply more often to things we don't want - thanks to our loss of influence.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,155

    Mr. G, Little Englanders? I do seem to recall you growing annoyed at the term 'Scotch', after which I said I'd not realised it was considered irksome and refrained from using it.

    The term also didn't work very well for Cameron. Not unlike Clinton's 'basket of deplorables'.

    In happier news, I have a bet. F1 ramble should be up fairly soon.

    MD, difference is that Scotch is a beverage. Also you would have to agree that there are a good few isolationist inward looking English participants posting here. I am very Scottish oriented but do not wish it to be cut off from the rest of the world , very unhealthy atmosphere in England at present which does not encourage people to look at it in a good light.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,838

    rcs1000 said:

    Elliot said:

    CD13 said:

    So the EU will allow the UK to change the FOM rules? Thus opening the floodgates for the other countries to change too. That is one of their red lines, surely?

    Do you really believe that?

    Yes, but the quid-pro-quo is that you lose some single market privileges, and the things you lose will be things other countries want a piece of, like market access for British banks.

    The overall deal here is that you've lost the ability to vote on the regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense, in exchange for the ability to repatriate some car wash employees, many of whom you could have repatriated anyway. I doubt that the rest will be wanting one too, just don't shout and wave it about.
    "Regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense" is exactly what we had inside the EU. I can't think of a time we got we wanted over the heads of the EU Commission and Germany.
    Really?

    What about the Financial Services Passport, which benefited small British firms - including my former fund management firm - above big continental banks?

    Now, it might be that we "lost" far more often than we "won", but the single market for financial services was hugely beneficial for smaller UK financial services firms.
    How would the passport have benefited smaller firms vs banks? Is it not universal?
    As a man about to go to bed, the benefit was this:

    Big banks had subsidiaries in many countries
    We had only a UK operatiom

    The passport enabled us to sell fund management products to consumers in France, Germany and Italy without having a local (regulated) subsidiary in those countries.

    There are few EU regulations that were unambiguously good for smaller UK firms. The Single European Financial Services Passport was one.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,275
    edited June 10
    Mr. G, it remains a term both unhelpful and deeply irritating.

    Edited extra bit: bah. Perhaps I'm being over-sensitive/grumpy. People can say what they like. But it's still a dumb expression.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,363

    JackW said:

    Thanks Nick for an interesting insight into Labour BREXIT fault lines and potential sticking plasters.

    That said I would contend that Labour only requires the appearance of a coherent position as the government is in utter disarray on the issue. The Conservatives limp from one fiasco to the next leaving in their wake confusion, disunity and the voters left in bemusement as to where the nation is going.

    The old adage of not interrupting your enemies as they engage in self destruction is clearly apposite. BREXIT has given the Tory government a severe case of the shits and they are now serial political public poopers. What a mess !!

    The strange thing is that the public don't appear all that concerned, a government is utter disarray wouldn't normally be expected to be enjoying consistent, fairly comfortable, leads in opinion polling.

    In the wake of Black Wednesday the tories shed 10 - 15pts over the next few months, here nothing is happening. Perhaps the wider public aren't tuned in or even all that bothered.
    People were hurt by 14% interest rates, and then crashing out of the ERM made it seem like it was all for nothing.

    People aren't being hurt by the government, and lots of people fear Corbyn.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,609

    Mr. G, it remains a term both unhelpful and deeply irritating.

    I can see it’s deeply irritating. However, as a term to describe those that see the world exclusively through a narrow prism of a fake nostalgic version of Englishness that never really existed, it can scarcely be bettered.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,275
    Mr. Meeks, fake nostalgic? The people who keep banging on about empire are hardcore Remainers seeking to invent a fictional version of a Leaver against whom they can rail.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,802

    Mr. Meeks, fake nostalgic? The people who keep banging on about empire are hardcore Remainers seeking to invent a fictional version of a Leaver against whom they can rail.

    You appear to have invented a fictional version of a Remainer against whom you can rail.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,275
    Mr. P, luckily for me, people have memories and will remember the bleating about 'Empire 2.0' and other such examples.

    Also, I did specify hardcore Remainers. Whilst a noisy bunch, with an unfortunately large presence in the political/media class, I firmly believe the vast majority of those who voted Remain are rather more reasonable, and less prone to inventing fantasies and attributing said fictions to their opponents.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,363

    Mr. G, it remains a term both unhelpful and deeply irritating.

    Edited extra bit: bah. Perhaps I'm being over-sensitive/grumpy. People can say what they like. But it's still a dumb expression.

    Oddly, it's a term whose meaning has shifted 180 degrees from the original. It used to mean people who were opposed to imperialism, and thought the UK should stay out of overseas conflicts.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,155

    Mr. G, it remains a term both unhelpful and deeply irritating.

    Edited extra bit: bah. Perhaps I'm being over-sensitive/grumpy. People can say what they like. But it's still a dumb expression.

    MD, I shall use isolationists or Luddites in future
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,443
    edited June 10

    JackW said:

    BREXIT has given the Tory government a severe case of the shits

    With several of them in cabinet.
    @Theuniondivvie very belated thanks for your wonderful joke about the naked bike ride and the Tommy Robinson supporters. Very funny indeed and absolutely merciless in nailing the 'cocks' in question!
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,731
    edited June 10

    Vaguely on topic: A strange symptom of the Brexiteer pathology appears to be an obsession with car washes. Just one of many aspects of the condition that I am far from able to comprehend.

    @Anazina maintains a list of these odd obsessions and verbal twitches.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,979
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Elliot said:

    CD13 said:

    So the EU will allow the UK to change the FOM rules? Thus opening the floodgates for the other countries to change too. That is one of their red lines, surely?

    Do you really believe that?

    Yes, but the quid-pro-quo is that you lose some single market privileges, and the things you lose will be things other countries want a piece of, like market access for British banks.

    The overall deal here is that you've lost the ability to vote on the regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense, in exchange for the ability to repatriate some car wash employees, many of whom you could have repatriated anyway. I doubt that the rest will be wanting one too, just don't shout and wave it about.
    "Regulations that you have to follow, which will now be decided by foreign countries in their interests and often deliberately at your expense" is exactly what we had inside the EU. I can't think of a time we got we wanted over the heads of the EU Commission and Germany.
    Really?

    What about the Financial Services Passport, which benefited small British firms - including my former fund management firm - above big continental banks?

    Now, it might be that we "lost" far more often than we "won", but the single market for financial services was hugely beneficial for smaller UK financial services firms.
    So how’s the single market in financial services coming?
    I guess we'll find out how well the single market in financial services coming. If a chunk of our financial services migrates to stay in the Single Market, it's doing OK. If we do the isolation thing and nothing happens, not so much.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 837
    Sean_F said:

    JackW said:

    Thanks Nick for an interesting insight into Labour BREXIT fault lines and potential sticking plasters.

    That said I would contend that Labour only requires the appearance of a coherent position as the government is in utter disarray on the issue. The Conservatives limp from one fiasco to the next leaving in their wake confusion, disunity and the voters left in bemusement as to where the nation is going.

    The old adage of not interrupting your enemies as they engage in self destruction is clearly apposite. BREXIT has given the Tory government a severe case of the shits and they are now serial political public poopers. What a mess !!

    The strange thing is that the public don't appear all that concerned, a government is utter disarray wouldn't normally be expected to be enjoying consistent, fairly comfortable, leads in opinion polling.

    In the wake of Black Wednesday the tories shed 10 - 15pts over the next few months, here nothing is happening. Perhaps the wider public aren't tuned in or even all that bothered.
    People were hurt by 14% interest rates, and then crashing out of the ERM made it seem like it was all for nothing.

    People aren't being hurt by the government, and lots of people fear Corbyn.
    I think the last point is true, not being Corbyn is worth 40% on it's own. If Labour had an electable leader willing to take a clear position it might have been very different.

    I wonder if in 50 or 100 years time, people will look for the tipping point for an alternative history. In retrospect the 2011 Scottish parliament election set all this in progress. The SNP majority there paved the way for the the indy referendum, it's defeat and the SNP surge afterwards contributed strongly to Ed Millibands defeat in 2015, leading straight to Brexit and to whatever follows.

    Fascinating stuff, lots of what might have beens..
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,275
    Mr. G, cheers.

    On the substance itself, I'm not an isolationist. The EU is a problem, not a solution. It necessarily denudes nation-states of authority, because aggregating centralised power is the inevitable consequence of removing national vetoes (itself necessary for smooth functioning with such a surplus of member states), and that removes democratic accountability and responsibility.

    The absence of an EU demos means this cannot be corrected, and the diametrically opposing imperatives of enhanced integration to try and make the single currency functional, and national democratic accountability means the EU is, I fear, destined to rip itself apart when the electorates of member states and bureaucracy of the EU come into increasing conflict.

    At that stage, the greater the integration, the greater the pain of disentangling the half-dead nation-states from the dead octopus' tentacles. Civil disturbance is near certain, a small war is far from impossible.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,443

    Vaguely on topic: A strange symptom of the Brexiteer pathology appears to be an obsession with car washes. Just one of many aspects of the condition that I am far from able to comprehend.

    I've never quite understood why people are so obsessive about car washes anyway. Why pay when even in summer we get lots of them for free?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,275
    Mr. 43, point of order: that's not necessarily the case. Common Law rather than Roman Law, and the use of English (plus London being a more popular city with bankers than potential rivals such as Frankfurt) mean you can't draw a perfect comparison of jobs moving with the loveliness, or not, of the single market in finance. Things are more complicated than that.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,731
    edited June 10


    Snip.

    At that stage, the greater the integration, the greater the pain of disentangling the half-dead nation-states from the dead octopus' tentacles. Civil disturbance is near certain, a small war is far from impossible.

    Civil disturbance.
    Small war.
    Dead octopus.

    Project fear?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 4,136
    CD13 said:





    "Boston is one of the most extreme examples in Britain of a town affected by recent EU immigration. … You can see that in the local pay statistics. Boston has always been a low-pay town. But it is now an exceptionally low-paid place. The average hourly wage nationally is £13.33. Across the East Midlands, it is £12.26. In Boston, it is £9.13. On a weekly basis, full-time earnings are more than £100 a week less than the national average.

    … So 10 single workers may each pay £60 a week to share what was a three-bedroom house, netting the landlords £600 a week. That means a gross rental income from the house of perhaps £30,000 a year. That is much more than local families can afford for those houses - and the housing supply has simply not kept up with demand. Local rents in Boston are actually much higher than in Nottingham despite wages being lower. This is a major problem within the town and has become a major cause of frustration. People living next door to these multiple-occupied homes are also not happy.

    … According to the Annual Population Survey, more than half of the Polish-born adults living in Britain are aged 25-35. And concentrations of young people create their own issues - especially on a Friday night. While young adults tend not to use the NHS much, they do have children. Around 11% of children born in the UK in 2014 had one parent who was an EU migrant. Around half of those had two EU migrant parents. In Boston, the authorities have responded to a sudden rise in demand for children's services - from keeping maternity wards open through to funding more school places. (They were caught unprepared? Like the Spanish Inquisition, no one in Government expected them?)

    Adrian Reed, head of a local school chain, says his schools get £1,000 per head from the public purse for new arrivals with language problems. He said: "In our trust, we have built a team of 10 people with a variety of languages - Polish, Portuguese, etc. They will be in the classroom supporting children... More importantly they support parents." (the article is mostly optimistic, concentrating on the attempts to help, rather than the chaos the Bostonians claim to see. Bless the BBC's cotton socks. But the classrooms remain the same size and no new schools were built)

    The article ends by saying that "Boston has been transformed by the expansion of the European Union to the east."

    No mention of a few car washers!

    You have to ask yourself "why Boston"? The answer, surely, is down to the type of employment prevelant there, which makes it easy for unskilled eastern Europeans to get work, even with poor English.

    Let's not get carried away with the thought that everyone around Boston would be earning shedloads more if it weren't for the immigration - unskilled manual labour on the land is always likely to command only very low pay.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,363

    Sean_F said:

    JackW said:

    Thanks Nick for an interesting insight into Labour BREXIT fault lines and potential sticking plasters.

    That said I would contend that Labour only requires the appearance of a coherent position as the government is in utter disarray on the issue. The Conservatives limp from one fiasco to the next leaving in their wake confusion, disunity and the voters left in bemusement as to where the nation is going.

    The old adage of not interrupting your enemies as they engage in self destruction is clearly apposite. BREXIT has given the Tory government a severe case of the shits and they are now serial political public poopers. What a mess !!

    The strange thing is that the public don't appear all that concerned, a government is utter disarray wouldn't normally be expected to be enjoying consistent, fairly comfortable, leads in opinion polling.

    In the wake of Black Wednesday the tories shed 10 - 15pts over the next few months, here nothing is happening. Perhaps the wider public aren't tuned in or even all that bothered.
    People were hurt by 14% interest rates, and then crashing out of the ERM made it seem like it was all for nothing.

    People aren't being hurt by the government, and lots of people fear Corbyn.
    I think the last point is true, not being Corbyn is worth 40% on it's own. If Labour had an electable leader willing to take a clear position it might have been very different.

    I wonder if in 50 or 100 years time, people will look for the tipping point for an alternative history. In retrospect the 2011 Scottish parliament election set all this in progress. The SNP majority there paved the way for the the indy referendum, it's defeat and the SNP surge afterwards contributed strongly to Ed Millibands defeat in 2015, leading straight to Brexit and to whatever follows.

    Fascinating stuff, lots of what might have beens..
    I think the tipping point was the financial crash, the effects of which are still rippling outwards across Western democracies.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,275
    Mr. Walker, you've cut away almost my entire post, with which you may disagree but which nevertheless has perfectly reasonable assessments of the present and future state of the EU, to just make a silly comment that doesn't even attempt to engage (or, indeed, refute) my line of thinking.

    If you want a debate, I'm happy to debate. If you want to cherrypick individual phrases and pretend the reasoning behind conclusions don't exist, what's the point?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,824
    OT Grenfell firefighters -- the Daily Mail puts the firefighters' case
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5823349/Grenfell-fire-crews-wrote-names-helmets-rushing-inferno.html

    Apologies if this was posted before but I did not see it -- just the O'Hagan LRB and Sunday Times attacks.

    Under those same rules, fire crew should not have even gone into Grenfell Tower because, according to a risk assessment carried out after the blaze started that night, it was in danger of collapsing.

    Firefighters were officially informed of this by Dany Cotton, the female commissioner of the London Fire Brigade, who addressed staff at the scene, in North Kensington, London, at the height of the unfolding tragedy.

    ‘Go in and get people out,’ she told them. ‘Forget protocol. Forget the rulebook.’ But, crucially, she also admitted that she couldn’t order them to go into the building — it was up to each individual fireman to make his own decision in those circumstances.

    All of the firefighters gathered around her — that’s more than 200 men and women — went in.


  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,802

    If you want to cherrypick individual phrases and pretend the reasoning behind conclusions don't exist, what's the point?

    Are you new here?
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 494
    "Suppose a few by-elections go horribly wrong (for legal reasons I won’t discuss one possible one in the near future). Suppose a new Tory leader calls a snap election and loses? What would Labour actually do?"

    Which possible one is Nick thinking of?

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 4,136

    UNSNIPPED:

    Mr. Walker, you've cut away almost my entire post, with which you may disagree but which nevertheless has perfectly reasonable assessments of the present and future state of the EU, to just make a silly comment that doesn't even attempt to engage (or, indeed, refute) my line of thinking.

    If you want a debate, I'm happy to debate. If you want to cherrypick individual phrases and pretend the reasoning behind conclusions don't exist, what's the point?

    That's a bit rich from someone who routinely (and very irritatingly) cuts away every post he responds to!
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,731

    Mr. Walker, you've cut away almost my entire post, with which you may disagree but which nevertheless has perfectly reasonable assessments of the present and future state of the EU, to just make a silly comment that doesn't even attempt to engage (or, indeed, refute) my line of thinking.

    If you want a debate, I'm happy to debate. If you want to cherrypick individual phrases and pretend the reasoning behind conclusions don't exist, what's the point?

    The point is that Brexiters are fond of citing Project Fear, but seem hardly immune from waving your own shrouds.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,731
    Who are we supposed to believe, Isabel Oakeshott in March or Isabel Oakeshott today?

  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 1,981

    Sean_F said:

    JackW said:

    Thanks Nick for an interesting insight into Labour BREXIT fault lines and potential sticking plasters.

    That said I would contend that Labour only requires the appearance of a coherent position as the government is in utter disarray on the issue. The Conservatives limp from one fiasco to the next leaving in their wake confusion, disunity and the voters left in bemusement as to where the nation is going.

    The old adage of not interrupting your enemies as they engage in self destruction is clearly apposite. BREXIT has given the Tory government a severe case of the shits and they are now serial political public poopers. What a mess !!

    The strange thing is that the public don't appear all that concerned, a government is utter disarray wouldn't normally be expected to be enjoying consistent, fairly comfortable, leads in opinion polling.

    In the wake of Black Wednesday the tories shed 10 - 15pts over the next few months, here nothing is happening. Perhaps the wider public aren't tuned in or even all that bothered.
    People were hurt by 14% interest rates, and then crashing out of the ERM made it seem like it was all for nothing.

    People aren't being hurt by the government, and lots of people fear Corbyn.
    I think the last point is true, not being Corbyn is worth 40% on it's own. If Labour had an electable leader willing to take a clear position it might have been very different.

    I wonder if in 50 or 100 years time, people will look for the tipping point for an alternative history. In retrospect the 2011 Scottish parliament election set all this in progress. The SNP majority there paved the way for the the indy referendum, it's defeat and the SNP surge afterwards contributed strongly to Ed Millibands defeat in 2015, leading straight to Brexit and to whatever follows.

    Fascinating stuff, lots of what might have beens..
    I'm inclined to believe that had David Miliband beaten his brother to the Labour leadership in 2010 there would not have been an EU referendum. I can understand the grounds on which others might disagree, but I don't think Cameron would then have won a majority in 2015.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,363
    Icarus said:

    "Suppose a few by-elections go horribly wrong (for legal reasons I won’t discuss one possible one in the near future). Suppose a new Tory leader calls a snap election and loses? What would Labour actually do?"

    Which possible one is Nick thinking of?

    A Tory MP is about to be prosecuted for bestiality.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,670
    Scott_P said:
    Gordo seems like the ultimate elder statesman compared to the 50 shades of quarterwit we have running the show these days.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,979
    edited June 10

    Mr. 43, point of order: that's not necessarily the case. Common Law rather than Roman Law, and the use of English (plus London being a more popular city with bankers than potential rivals such as Frankfurt) mean you can't draw a perfect comparison of jobs moving with the loveliness, or not, of the single market in finance. Things are more complicated than that.

    Fair enough. If jobs don't move that doesn't necessarily indicate the single market in financial services is working badly, for the reasons you give. My prediction is that financial services will migrate to stay in the EU, but slowly thanks to inertia and us being cautious in changing our practical relationship with the EU. ie we will embrace the vassal state, for the time being at least.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 494
    Sean_F said:

    Icarus said:

    "Suppose a few by-elections go horribly wrong (for legal reasons I won’t discuss one possible one in the near future). Suppose a new Tory leader calls a snap election and loses? What would Labour actually do?"

    Which possible one is Nick thinking of?

    A Tory MP is about to be prosecuted for bestiality.
    Was a dog involved?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,478
    A clear and concise header Nick. More important than what will Labour do about Brexit if they are elected is what they will put in their manifesto if the government are forced into an election in the very near future which looks likely

    No 1 in their manifesto WE WILL HOLD ANOTHER REFERENDUM.

    They can then do some market research into Leavers concerns -probably 95% immigration- and the answers to these can be 2-9 in their manifesto.

    May's administration is falling apart and thanks to Trump and the catastrophic negotiations so is the hunger for Brexit
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,802

    Who are we supposed to believe, Isabel Oakeshott in March or Isabel Oakeshott today?

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,443

    Who are we supposed to believe, Isabel Oakeshott in March or Isabel Oakeshott today?

    Can I suggest a compromise?

    We assume she was lying on both occasions.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,363
    British Republicans are their own worst enemies. They combine the charm of Sammy Wilson with the intelligence of Diane Abbott.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,443
    Sean_F said:

    Icarus said:

    "Suppose a few by-elections go horribly wrong (for legal reasons I won’t discuss one possible one in the near future). Suppose a new Tory leader calls a snap election and loses? What would Labour actually do?"

    Which possible one is Nick thinking of?

    A Tory MP is about to be prosecuted for bestiality.
    Seriously?!!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,275
    Mr. Pointer, I don't cut anything because I don't quote anything.

    Morris Dancer is 100% consistent :D

    Mr. Walker, if I believe the EU is going to fail and the deeper the integration the worse the consequences, if the edifice is shake and will collapse then leaving sooner rather than later is entirely sensible. I doubt anyone would seriously argue the EU is not integrating ever more, so the question becomes whether or not people believe that will make the EU unsustainable. It might not. But the absence of democracy and accountability across much of Europe would itself not be a good thing.

    Mr. 43, yeah, if jobs depart in large numbers that could be seen as indicative, but if it's only a trickle that can't necessarily be attributed to the single market as other factors play a role. (How splendid to make a sensible point to a sensible post, and then have a sensible reply back. Gosh).
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,434
    Sean_F said:

    Icarus said:

    "Suppose a few by-elections go horribly wrong (for legal reasons I won’t discuss one possible one in the near future). Suppose a new Tory leader calls a snap election and loses? What would Labour actually do?"

    Which possible one is Nick thinking of?

    A Tory MP is about to be prosecuted for bestiality.
    Disappointingly then, only one? .. :sunglasses:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,443
    edited June 10
    JackW said:

    Sean_F said:

    Icarus said:

    "Suppose a few by-elections go horribly wrong (for legal reasons I won’t discuss one possible one in the near future). Suppose a new Tory leader calls a snap election and loses? What would Labour actually do?"

    Which possible one is Nick thinking of?

    A Tory MP is about to be prosecuted for bestiality.
    Disappointingly then, only one? .. :sunglasses:
    In my best Forest:

    They'm all like sheep.

    Edit - obviously I'm referring to their determination to follow the whip at all times...

    ...that doesn't come across much better...
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,670
    Garden

    Thomas

    Yes, see also offence being taken at the phrases Gammon and Little Englander, while being happy to use terms such as Waycist, Frogs and Remoaners.

    And they really dislike the Tube scene in His Darkest Hour.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,434
    Icarus said:

    Sean_F said:

    Icarus said:

    "Suppose a few by-elections go horribly wrong (for legal reasons I won’t discuss one possible one in the near future). Suppose a new Tory leader calls a snap election and loses? What would Labour actually do?"

    Which possible one is Nick thinking of?

    A Tory MP is about to be prosecuted for bestiality.
    Was a dog involved?
    If a dog were involved I'm sure the Tory MP would get off Scott-free ....
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,363
    Icarus said:

    Sean_F said:

    Icarus said:

    "Suppose a few by-elections go horribly wrong (for legal reasons I won’t discuss one possible one in the near future). Suppose a new Tory leader calls a snap election and loses? What would Labour actually do?"

    Which possible one is Nick thinking of?

    A Tory MP is about to be prosecuted for bestiality.
    Was a dog involved?
    Horse.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,731
    ydoethur said:

    Who are we supposed to believe, Isabel Oakeshott in March or Isabel Oakeshott today?

    Can I suggest a compromise?

    We assume she was lying on both occasions.
    This whole affair is quite confusing.

    If Aaron Banks is an agent of influence, why aren’t the police involved?
    If he is not, why has he continually lied to Carole Cadwalladr?
    Why did Oakeshott have his emails in her attic?
    Why did she decide to revisit them when writing a book “about the armed forces”.
    Where is Lord Ashcroft in all of this?
    Who released the emails to the Sunday Times?

    Etc
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,275
    Ms Anazina, I don't use the terms 'Waycist' [which is ridiculous] or 'Remoaner' [which is daft].

    Mocking the French is an ancient English pastime, and I'm quite happy for them to call us rosbifs. It also has nothing to do with the EU referendum or Leave/Remain. The only people offended by it are rather over-sensitive.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,443
    JackW said:

    Icarus said:

    Sean_F said:

    Icarus said:

    "Suppose a few by-elections go horribly wrong (for legal reasons I won’t discuss one possible one in the near future). Suppose a new Tory leader calls a snap election and loses? What would Labour actually do?"

    Which possible one is Nick thinking of?

    A Tory MP is about to be prosecuted for bestiality.
    Was a dog involved?
    If a dog were involved I'm sure the Tory MP would get off Scott-free ....
    And Bunnies would of course go to France...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,956
    edited June 10

    CD13 said:

    (Edited for length)

    "Boston is one of the most extreme examples in Britain of a town affected by recent EU immigration. … You can see that in the local pay statistics. Boston has always been a low-pay town. But it is now an exceptionally low-paid place. The average hourly wage nationally is £13.33. Across the East Midlands, it is £12.26. In Boston, it is £9.13. On a weekly basis, full-time earnings are more than £100 a week less than the national average.

    … So 10 single workers may each pay £60 a week to share what was a three-bedroom house, netting the landlords £600 a week. That means a gross rental income from the house of perhaps £30,000 a year. That is much more than local families can afford for those houses - and the housing supply has simply not kept up with demand. Local rents in Boston are actually much higher than in Nottingham despite wages being lower. This is a major problem within the town and has become a major cause of frustration. People living next door to these multiple-occupied homes are also not happy.

    You have to ask yourself "why Boston"? The answer, surely, is down to the type of employment prevelant there, which makes it easy for unskilled eastern Europeans to get work, even with poor English.

    Let's not get carried away with the thought that everyone around Boston would be earning shedloads more if it weren't for the immigration - unskilled manual labour on the land is always likely to command only very low pay.
    That post on Boston was really interesting. The point is, they don't expect to earn big money there, but they don't expect the cost of housing to go through the roof.

    As @Another_Richard has pointed out, agricultural output has flat lined whilst the numbers employed in the sector has gone up. The cost is being born by the people whilst the businesses take all the benefit.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,076
    Quite apart from the Russian connection, how does Isabelle Oakeshot get billed on the BBC as a journalist when she is clearly a politician?
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,670

    Ms Anazina, I don't use the terms 'Waycist' [which is ridiculous] or 'Remoaner' [which is daft].

    Mocking the French is an ancient English pastime, and I'm quite happy for them to call us rosbifs. It also has nothing to do with the EU referendum or Leave/Remain. The only people offended by it are rather over-sensitive.

    I wasn’t aiming it at you, particularly. Regarding French people, I would encourage you to visit their country and meet some. Any good reason why a fully grown man hasn’t visited our nearest neighbour?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 1,981
    Anazina said:

    Garden

    Thomas

    Yes, see also offence being taken at the phrases Gammon and Little Englander, while being happy to use terms such as Waycist, Frogs and Remoaners.

    And they really dislike the Tube scene in His Darkest Hour.

    All in all just a bunch of snowflakes. We really should all try to be more considerate and kind to them.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,443

    ydoethur said:

    Who are we supposed to believe, Isabel Oakeshott in March or Isabel Oakeshott today?

    Can I suggest a compromise?

    We assume she was lying on both occasions.
    This whole affair is quite confusing.

    If Aaron Banks is an agent of influence, why aren’t the police involved?
    If he is not, why has he continually lied to Carole Cadwalladr?
    Why did Oakeshott have his emails in her attic?
    Why did she decide to revisit them when writing a book “about the armed forces”.
    Where is Lord Ashcroft in all of this?
    Who released the emails to the Sunday Times?

    Etc
    OK - my opinion of Dominic Cummings, his integrity and his ability, wouldn't actually pass the mods, so I won't try. Suffice it to say that if I found he were a Russian spy rather than what I consider him to be comparable to, that would be a considerable improvement. But if this story came from Isobel Oakeshott, my immediate assumption is it's an Irving-style fantasy that she's dreamed up to promote herself. Therefore, given she isn't particularly bright and has no noticeable literary talent, it's not surprising it makes no sense.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,478
    Sean_F said:

    Icarus said:

    "Suppose a few by-elections go horribly wrong (for legal reasons I won’t discuss one possible one in the near future). Suppose a new Tory leader calls a snap election and loses? What would Labour actually do?"

    Which possible one is Nick thinking of?

    A Tory MP is about to be prosecuted for bestiality.
    Liam Fox and a rat? Boris and a lizard?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,991
    edited June 10
    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BREXIT has given the Tory government a severe case of the shits

    With several of them in cabinet.
    @Theuniondivvie very belated thanks for your wonderful joke about the naked bike ride and the Tommy Robinson supporters. Very funny indeed and absolutely merciless in nailing the 'cocks' in question!
    Thanks, always glad to inspire a chortle. I subsequently saw Twitter had several variations on the theme so I can't claim originality!
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,670
    Scott_P said:

    Who are we supposed to believe, Isabel Oakeshott in March or Isabel Oakeshott today?

    The odious Oakeshott shops her sources. Nothing more need be said about her.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,956
    Starmer coming close to saying Labour's policy is to stay in the Single Market.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,275
    edited June 10
    Ms. Anazina, I don't go on holiday much. I certainly don't go on holiday to satisfy your bizarre obsession with acting like a snob because I happen not to have visited France.

    Edited extra bit: I'm quite aggravated and that's no mood for discussion, so I'll be off. If others missed it, I've posted the pre-race ramble. Backed Ricciardo at 5 (5.25 with boost) for a podium.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,443
    Roger said:

    Sean_F said:

    Icarus said:

    "Suppose a few by-elections go horribly wrong (for legal reasons I won’t discuss one possible one in the near future). Suppose a new Tory leader calls a snap election and loses? What would Labour actually do?"

    Which possible one is Nick thinking of?

    A Tory MP is about to be prosecuted for bestiality.
    Liam Fox and a rat? Boris and a lizard?
    It might of course be the opposite - someone who banged a Tory MP being prosecuted for bestiality on the grounds they had sex with an ass.

    And with that I have a mighty eight foot horn that needs inflating. And I also have to play some music.

    Have a good morning.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,956
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Who are we supposed to believe, Isabel Oakeshott in March or Isabel Oakeshott today?

    Can I suggest a compromise?

    We assume she was lying on both occasions.
    This whole affair is quite confusing.

    If Aaron Banks is an agent of influence, why aren’t the police involved?
    If he is not, why has he continually lied to Carole Cadwalladr?
    Why did Oakeshott have his emails in her attic?
    Why did she decide to revisit them when writing a book “about the armed forces”.
    Where is Lord Ashcroft in all of this?
    Who released the emails to the Sunday Times?

    Etc
    OK - my opinion of Dominic Cummings, his integrity and his ability, wouldn't actually pass the mods, so I won't try. Suffice it to say that if I found he were a Russian spy rather than what I consider him to be comparable to, that would be a considerable improvement. But if this story came from Isobel Oakeshott, my immediate assumption is it's an Irving-style fantasy that she's dreamed up to promote herself. Therefore, given she isn't particularly bright and has no noticeable literary talent, it's not surprising it makes no sense.
    I'm surprised more isn't made about Cummings's time in Russia in the 1990s.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,991
    Sean_F said:

    Icarus said:

    Sean_F said:

    Icarus said:

    "Suppose a few by-elections go horribly wrong (for legal reasons I won’t discuss one possible one in the near future). Suppose a new Tory leader calls a snap election and loses? What would Labour actually do?"

    Which possible one is Nick thinking of?

    A Tory MP is about to be prosecuted for bestiality.
    Was a dog involved?
    Horse.
    Does flogging a dead one count as bestiality?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,764
    edited June 10
    CD13 said:

    Mr Tokyo,

    It's not car wash employees who worried the voters of Boston, and I doubt they were much of a factor elsewhere.
    ...

    No mention of a few car washers!

    Fair enough, I'm overstating my case and there are some areas where it's a big deal. It's not clear that this will make a huge difference in those areas though, since a lot of the existing people would presumably be grandfathered in.

    Even on immigration the solution Nick Palmer outlines is arguably a loss of control compared to Remain; On the one hand a lot of the kind of measures it would include would have workarounds - for example, you might require having a job offer in advance, and the market would respond to this by creating a layer of intermediate companies that gave people in Poland job offers then contracted them out to farms in Boston. On the other, Britain would lost influence on other things that affected who came; Not least it would have given up its veto on who was actually in the EU, so to take an example that came up in the campaign, if by some miracle Turkey got itself back onto the EU accession track, the UK would no longer have a veto on letting them in, but once admitted Turks would have the (admittedly more limited) rights to move to Britain that Corbyn had negotiated. And immigration is the part that it's optimizing for - everything else is worse.

    Basically this whole thing is an incredibly unattractive proposition for both Leavers and Remainers alike. The only reason it would fly in Britain in the scenario described would because the outgoing government had lowered expectations so much, and nobody anywhere else in the EU would be in a hurry to imitate it.
This discussion has been closed.