Just to say (as a Welshman and ex-outside half) I'm hoping England win today. I could never support England in rugby but I can't help wanting the footballers to win. It's Baddiel and Skinner's 'It's Coming Home' that gets me... those halcyon 90s years of cheap beer, great British music, Gazza's goal against Scotland, warm summers and the nostalgic memories of being a happy teenager (that the song brings) that does it. Come on England ❤️
Well said. For those now between about 38 and 45, 1996 was the summer of love. Hot weather, new found freedoms, Three Lions topping the charts, Trainspotting in the cinema, parties, festivals, first girlfriends, no responsibilities and a feeling that life was going to be wonderful!
Maybe it's my Scandinavian background talking, but aren't the odds for Sweden (15-4 as I write) a bit long? Something like 6-4 sounds more reasonable, so it may be value. DYOR, of course. On the other match, Croatia are heavily favoured, which is probably right but maybe a little too much.
Don't forget that's the odds for the result at full time. Not the final result, if there is extra.
I was curious about what you thought their motivations were?
False consciousness, a genuine desire to see agricultural wages rise, or merely a feeling of not liking foreigners?
Edit: To be fair to you, I'll give you my view. A little of both the last two. A time of massive change over which they have no control or say, or for which any planning was done. An associated feeling of being told they don't matter.
OK. I think your previous email summarised it fairly well. Farmers like it because the EU workers work hard at lower wages but the workers themselves are happy with the wages [ at least, initially ] since it pays far more than they would get in their own country.
The neighbourhood where they live in do not like them because they are bloody foreigners.
My personal view is as long as the workers are paid at least the legal minimum wage I have no problem. We know very well how discerning the vast majority of customers are like. They like good produce and cheap. That's why paying sufficiently higher wages where the rural English working class will work will mean the farmers will be out of business very quickly. Apart from a few Lefty intellectualls , no one will buy the more expensive produce since it will be cheaper to import even after paying duties. And, their workers will receive far less than our minimum wage!
I am left of centre - in fact, more than just LoC. Ironically, I am almost Adam Smithsonian in my views. If we are going to have liberalised trade in goods, why not in labour. After all, it is an input just like capital. However, my view is not restricted to the EU only. Anyone can come. They will not have access to benefits but can work 48 hours a week - if necessary in 2 jobs. Or, even 60/72 hours a week for a limited period [say, 2 months max ]. These people want to work to earn money and buy land/property in their own country. They do not come here for benefits as it commonly believed.
As you said correctly, the reason they are disliked is not because they work in the farms but because they are here. It is simply racist.
Except it wasn't. Chequers is a C16th Manor House and the rooms are actually very cool even during a heatwave.
And this neatly illustrates the trouble with this article: speculation and guesswork. Until or unless ministers leak further details to the Sunday papers we remain in the dark. Something is clearly going on. The fact that Brexiteers (apart from Guido Fawkes, who wasn't present) are so chilled about it all means there's more to this than meets the eye. David Davis would have certainly resigned and others would have been agitating.
The only part of this article which is trustworthy is the point about Theresa May. She is, and remains, a formidable force. Mike Smithson has gradually come to realise this truth. Write her off at your peril.
Why does Chequers being a 16th century Manor House mean it is exempt from the laws of thermodynamics?
Big thick stone walls and high ceilings mean it remains remarkable cool even in summer. Unfortunately, it also becomes a devil to heat in winter.
Just to say (as a Welshman and ex-outside half) I'm hoping England win today. I could never support England in rugby but I can't help wanting the footballers to win. It's Baddiel and Skinner's 'It's Coming Home' that gets me... those halcyon 90s years of cheap beer, great British music, Gazza's goal against Scotland, warm summers and the nostalgic memories of being a happy teenager (that the song brings) that does it. Come on England ❤️
Well said. For those now between about 38 and 45, 1996 was the summer of love. Hot weather, new found freedoms, Three Lions topping the charts, Trainspotting in the cinema, parties, festivals, first girlfriends, no responsibilities and a feeling that life was going to be wonderful!
Come on England!
You would have been more successful trainspotting on a railway station rather than in the cinema.
By 1996 I was grown up and sensible.
Italia 90, on a lads' holiday in Magaluf, was the defining tournament for me.
Interesting, but I disagree. I think Barnier will say politely that it's progress but there is further work to do, and it will get chipped away at the edges. In the end there will be a fudged deal. The inconsistencies relate to hypotheticals:
* Parliament COULD decide on deviation. Barnier will say sure, but build in the collapse of free trade if that happens. Parliament can in principle always decide to affiliate to Brazil or ban pubs, but in practice it doesn't happen. * The "mobility framework" will be FoM in all but name - perhaps, as with Switzerland, allowing movement only if jobs have been advertised domestically first * The MaxFac idea will certainly be implemented when it's been shown to be technically feasible to everyone's satisfaction, i.e. probably never. * Britain can certainly agree trade deals with other countries if we can find a way to make them meaningful, yet consistent with the package, i.e. probably never.
I think the difficult one is the first, being harmonised on goods but not services. The Continent might be tempted as they can require a price of marginalising the City, but it breaches a fundamental principle. Expect some hard bargaining here with an outcome that we could in theory deviate for services, but with a massive effect which will mean we won't.
Will May get away with it? Yes, I think so. Most voters aren't really that interested in these arcane details. So long as we're leaving and there's some sort of deal that doesn't wreck Britain, they'll feel that's not too bad.
Nick
How does Norway work? My understanding was that they didn’t have to apply EU regulations if they don’t want to, but this doesn’t crash free trade.
Mobility framework isn’t FoM. An automatic work permit with a job offer is fine. More important us no recourse to public funds. Essentially put them on the same rules as someone with ILR and make it easy to obtain
I think the current FoM rules allow no benefits except child benefits. We chose not to implement it. Someone please clarify as I would like to know this as well.
Not quite.
FoM requires that all EU citizens are treated identically to U.K. citizens
Since we have a non contributory welfare system that creates a problem
I like our non contributory system (although I wish there was a top-up facility) because a decent society should underpin certain protections for citizens.
But in any event a complete overhaul of our welfare and benefit system to allow us to restrict benefits to EU citizens is in the “NFW” category for politicians
Morning all. I tweeted a few initial reflections @jamesamalcolm but I am holding off further judgement for now. What strikes me is the comment below about the EU red line being we get a worse deal than we have now with EU membership. How one responds to this, assuming it is correct, depends on your view of EU membership surely? For example, the EU may feel their centralizing model is an ideal, but if you disagree with that then removing yourself from it, even partially can be a gain, even if the EU construe it as a loss. In short, it may not necessarily be a zero sum game.
One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.
If the EU reject it they say the chaos and division in the Tories has ensured no deal and no time for Labour to fix it. If the EU accept it they say that it gives too much to the EU for not enough because the chaos and division of the Tories meant the gov didn't make any progress earlier. If it is accepted Labour claim they would have gotten a better deal on services etc etc.
How big a hit the Tories take from this will not become clear for a while, but there's likely to be too many genuinely angry in the base for there to be no hit. Therefore Labour will play it safe and continue to say merely that they would have done a better job. What kind of a better job? They'll be pretty vague, which will not make it as effective a claim as it might be, but it will be enough to garner some level of support from the angry.
Labour, of course, does not need to garner any support from this. 40% has been plenty to win a majority. They need May's electoral coalition to begin to peel away. The loss of the angry 1 in 10, or even 1 in 15 of the Tory GE 2017 vote to NOTA, UKIP or just stay at home, would radically alter the electoral position.
The next election is done for Con. And the one after that. And the one after that. And the one after that...
May will not be leading the Tories next time, if Mogg looks the best prospect to beat Corbyn and hold the Tory coalition together he will be elected leader, at the moment Javid only leads the next leader polls as he looks most electable, if Mogg looks the better bet he could easily take back the lead again
48% voting against leaving in 2016 =/= “don’t want to leave (on any terms)”
The same for the 52% in reverse, which is why we need a people’s vote with an option to remain.
Nope they are not equivalent
52% voted to leave, so leave we must
48% voted to remain
A proportion of that 48% are in the “Carlotta/BigG” camp of “I voted to remain but the majority voted to leave so now I want to leave because that’s democracy”
I'm sure there will be some theatrics and crises, but we're getting there. As a Remainer, I'm reasonably content, and willing to give TM some credit for it. Trump next book on The Art of the Deal might have a new chapter on getting agreement by letting everyone let off steam until a decision has to be made.
The impressive thing she's done by letting the headbangers discredit themselves then slapping them around is to make herself look strong in the middle of a massive capitulation and retreat. Spirit of Dunkirk etc etc
I have no doubt at all that she will sack any cabinet member who goes off message. Indeed no 10 already had names ready to replace anyone who walked.
She is stubborn and will have gained considerable respect for acting decisively
With infantile taxi threat et al, I would argue that she has just fostered more resentment for herself and her team. If you treat people respectfully you will reap the rewards.
Especially as she's already on incredibly thin ice after conducting the worst general election campaign since 1700 or longer, turning a 25% option poll lead into virtual "neck and neck" in four weeks and blowing Cameron's majority.
She's behaving as though she's got a 100 seat majority sitting behind her...
However, she is in a quite strong position. I don't know why it took her so long to realise this. Where the headbangers will vote against her, say, 60 to 75 Tories, there will be enough support from an equal number of Labour / LD / SNP MPs to counter that. She could even do that without the DUP but she won't as she needs them in other matters like the budget etc.
The Tory wets [ about 15 of them ] are numerically not strong enough to do anything given the DUP votes.
Just to say (as a Welshman and ex-outside half) I'm hoping England win today. I could never support England in rugby but I can't help wanting the footballers to win. It's Baddiel and Skinner's 'It's Coming Home' that gets me... those halcyon 90s years of cheap beer, great British music, Gazza's goal against Scotland, warm summers and the nostalgic memories of being a happy teenager (that the song brings) that does it. Come on England ❤️
Well said. For those now between about 38 and 45, 1996 was the summer of love. Hot weather, new found freedoms, Three Lions topping the charts, Trainspotting in the cinema, parties, festivals, first girlfriends, no responsibilities and a feeling that life was going to be wonderful!
Come on England!
You would have been more successful trainspotting on a railway station rather than in the cinema.
By 1996 I was grown up and sensible.
Italia 90, on a lads' holiday in Magaluf, was the defining tournament for me.
Envy is a terrible thing. Although they say youth is wasted on the young!
In other words, Parliament has to approve significant regulatory change, but in practice always does so in due course. In part this reflects the dominance of parties who want to be close to the EU, in part by the implied (and I think unstated) risks of disruption to trade if they suddenly decided not to adhere to something (clearly the EU would not accept imports of goods not complying with their regulations). I expect the same will apply in Britain.
Of course the EU won’t accept imports that don’t comply - it doesn’t mean that the Norwegians have to apply them to the domestic market as well.
I’m sure I read that a decent percentage are not applied but have no idea whether those are “major” ones or not
Edit: your link says 28% of EU laws are in force in Norway
F1: markets beginning to awaken. Raikkonen's odds now 7.5 for fastest qualifier.
Intrigued Vettel's 3, given his neck pain.
Good value on Kimi there. I wonder what’s up with Vettel and his neck? Brendon Hartley is definitely going wake up tomorrow with a stiff neck and a sore back. Your bet on him not to be classified could be good (or could be bad if it gets voided by him not starting the race).
Interesting that we have people like Southam and NickPalmer presuming this is a solid basis for a deal, that the EU will recognise that and bend a little even as they ask for more, while Mr Herdson is in the 'it's a nonsense deal , it's not even intended to be a deal' camp.
It woukd help explain the Brexiteers all being on board.
In some ways, it's both. It *is* a basis for a deal if both sides were acting reasonably. However, the process so far has been marked by muddle and indecision on the British side, and intransigence and rigidity on the EU one. Because of that history (and also the nature of the people and institutions involved), I don't expect the EU to give it the attention it deserves, partly for ideological reasons - the dividing up of the Single Market and other apparent contradictions - but also because those have been the tactics that have served it well so far (in the narrow terms of the negotiation - it's doing a lot of damage to the UK-EU relationship that could last years or even decades).
I also think that that's a large part of the reason that the Brexit ministers signed up fairly readily. I'm sure they're not happy at the concessions but then they only count as concessions if they have to be honoured and they also mean that if there is a breakdown, Britain gets to play the good guy, which might not be a lot of help to someone who loses their job but it does put the government politically in the right place and if it is the case that there is no deal possible without the EU effectively dictating terms, then that mitigates the governmet's blame for the fallout.
But it all depends on what you expect the response of Barnier, Junker, Tusk, Verhofstadt, Merkel, Varadkar and the other Council members to be.
The EU's real red line is that the deal has to be clearly and permanently worse for us than membership. Why would we want that? Because we need access to the EU market and its regulatory system. Better than nothing but worse than what we had is a big negotiating space and it should be easy to find agreement. It's a difficult sell for the UK government however as Brexit was by choice and not a force of circumstance. No-one voted Leave with the intention of reducing their prospects, to make things more difficult for themselves and to make themselves poorer.
Once again you don’t value the political benefits of not being a member
However, she is in a quite strong position. I don't know why it took her so long to realise this. Where the headbangers will vote against her, say, 60 to 75 Tories, there will be enough support from an equal number of Labour / LD / SNP MPs to counter that. She could even do that without the DUP but she won't as she needs them in other matters like the budget etc.
The Tory wets [ about 15 of them ] are numerically not strong enough to do anything given the DUP votes.
Parliament is only half her problem, the other half is holding on to the party leadership. By holding back she's made it more dangerous to challenge her with the deadline so close, and more importantly given the Brexit people in her cabinet a chance to prove that they don't actually have any kind of viable alternative.
Morning all. I tweeted a few initial reflections @jamesamalcolm but I am holding off further judgement for now. What strikes me is the comment below about the EU red line being we get a worse deal than we have now with EU membership. How one responds to this, assuming it is correct, depends on your view of EU membership surely? For example, the EU may feel their centralizing model is an ideal, but if you disagree with that then removing yourself from it, even partially can be a gain, even if the EU construe it as a loss. In short, it may not necessarily be a zero sum game.
I agree, the primary aim is to leave the EU. We do that next year, all the other stuff is much less important, as once we are out of the EU we can diverge when it suits us. The EU/UK deal is really to ensure there's no cliff edge in early 2021 when the transition deal ends.
Max up thread makes a lot of good points about how the Swiss tackle freedom of movement, we might have to change our benefits system to something similar in order to deter excessive immigration. We will be free to do that out our own pace if we want to, but that's not the sort of thing we could do by 2021.
I'm quite sympathetic to the school of "Fuck the EU, WTO it is", but I have to admit that it would probably be more sensible to take the whole process slowly and steadily.
48% voting against leaving in 2016 =/= “don’t want to leave (on any terms)”
The same for the 52% in reverse, which is why we need a people’s vote with an option to remain.
Nope they are not equivalent
52% voted to leave, so leave we must
48% voted to remain
A proportion of that 48% are in the “Carlotta/BigG” camp of “I voted to remain but the majority voted to leave so now I want to leave because that’s democracy”
And a proportion on the 52 in the ‘what have I done’ camp. In any event , those dynamics change if there were to be a second referendum.
48% voting against leaving in 2016 =/= “don’t want to leave (on any terms)”
The same for the 52% in reverse, which is why we need a people’s vote with an option to remain.
Nope they are not equivalent
52% voted to leave, so leave we must
48% voted to remain
A proportion of that 48% are in the “Carlotta/BigG” camp of “I voted to remain but the majority voted to leave so now I want to leave because that’s democracy”
A proportion of the 52% want to forget all about Brexit.
However, she is in a quite strong position. I don't know why it took her so long to realise this. Where the headbangers will vote against her, say, 60 to 75 Tories, there will be enough support from an equal number of Labour / LD / SNP MPs to counter that. She could even do that without the DUP but she won't as she needs them in other matters like the budget etc.
The Tory wets [ about 15 of them ] are numerically not strong enough to do anything given the DUP votes.
Parliament is only half her problem, the other half is holding on to the party leadership. By holding back she's made it more dangerous to challenge her with the deadline so close, and more importantly given the Brexit people in her cabinet a chance to prove that they don't actually have any kind of viable alternative.
If she can go past the next week, she will be safe. Let's see what the Sunday and Monday papers say. The Headbangers never had any numbers behind them. 60-75 is not enough. I cannot see her losing a no confidence vote in the Con PP.
Agreed, if it came to a vote in the whole Party electorate, she will be a goner!
Downing St has made it clear that full cabinet collective responsibility is in operation from now. I wasn't aware that it had been suspended but only now TM realised she didn't need the Headbangers.
We will be formally aligned on goods while for eg financial services we will be de facto aligned and certainly a rule taker if we want to continue to do business as we do today.
Take back control!
And yet, this deal is a non starter, the EU has never and will never compromise on free movement. I pointed it out last night, it will insist on the full fat 100% "EU citizen" concept.
However, there is definitely scope for divergence on services, as I said yesterday it will result in capitalised subsidiaries in smaller EU countries with 95% of the work carried out in the UK. That's the Nomura model (though I thought I was Luxembourg, not Tallinn) and it looks very much like what JP are doing with their "dozens" of people moving and the rest being given guarantees of not moving to Europe.
Without passporting that's a non starter because each entity will need to be registered in its respective jurisdiction.
A UK entity or subsidiary would need to be FCA-registered and as such the FCA would need to align regulations with the EU if that subsidiary wanted to transact client business in the EU. Which to be fair the FCA has said it will do.
Why do you think the Govt has sold The City down the river? 2 years ago it was all The City must be protected with passporting or equivalence, now not a mention at all.
I don't think it's being sold down the river. It will just ignore Brexit. Because the City will self regulate and those regulations will precisely mirror those of Brussels/the EU. They have already stated that there will be no bonfire of regulations and that they will seek to remain closely aligned with the EU regulatory-wise.
Downing St has made it clear that full cabinet collective responsibility is in operation from now. I wasn't aware that it had been suspended but only now TM realised she didn't need the Headbangers.
Or, was this the strategy all along ?
The implication was that it had never been restored since Cameron suspended it for the referendum.
It must be tempting for one of the Brexiteers to put out a statement saying something like "We've agreed to this for the good of the country. We do not anticipate any further concessions."
Except it wasn't. Chequers is a C16th Manor House and the rooms are actually very cool even during a heatwave.
And this neatly illustrates the trouble with this article: speculation and guesswork. Until or unless ministers leak further details to the Sunday papers we remain in the dark. Something is clearly going on. The fact that Brexiteers (apart from Guido Fawkes, who wasn't present) are so chilled about it all means there's more to this than meets the eye. David Davis would have certainly resigned and others would have been agitating.
The only part of this article which is trustworthy is the point about Theresa May. She is, and remains, a formidable force. Mike Smithson has gradually come to realise this truth. Write her off at your peril.
What if in the end no one was prepared to back no deal on account of them having an attack of conscience at the havoc this would wreak on their country?
What an utter nonsensical and ignorant tweet from that guy!
Yes, weird and delusional. But it's back to level pegging.
I wonder what the first post-Chequers poll will show? I'd expect a May bounce, GIN expects the opposite. Not expecting it to be durable either way - there's too much going on for the underlying position to change.
48% voting against leaving in 2016 =/= “don’t want to leave (on any terms)”
The same for the 52% in reverse, which is why we need a people’s vote with an option to remain.
Nope they are not equivalent
52% voted to leave, so leave we must
48% voted to remain
A proportion of that 48% are in the “Carlotta/BigG” camp of “I voted to remain but the majority voted to leave so now I want to leave because that’s democracy”
And a proportion on the 52 in the ‘what have I done’ camp. In any event , those dynamics change if there were to be a second referendum.
The last polling I saw (a while ago) showed that there was a clear majority that wanted to leave even though the right/wrong thing to do was much closer to the referendum
Interesting that we have people like Southam and NickPalmer presuming this is a solid basis for a deal, that the EU will recognise that and bend a little even as they ask for more, while Mr Herdson is in the 'it's a nonsense deal , it's not even intended to be a deal' camp.
It woukd help explain the Brexiteers all being on board.
In some ways, it's both. It *is* a basis for a deal if both sides were acting reasonably. However, the process so far has been marked by muddle and indecision on the British side, and intransigence and rigidity on the EU one. Because of that history (and also the nature of the people and institutions involved), I don't expect the EU to give it the attention it deserves, partly for ideological reasons - the dividing up of the Single Market and other apparent contradictions - but also because those have been the tactics that have served it well so far (in the narrow terms of the negotiation - it's doing a lot of damage to the UK-EU relationship that could last years or even decades).
I also think that that's a large part of the reason that the Brexit ministers signed up fairly readily. I'm sure they're not happy at the concessions but then they only count as concessions if they have to be honoured and they also mean that if there is a breakdown, Britain gets to play the good guy, which might not be a lot of help to someone who loses their job but it does put the government politically in the right place and if it is the case that there is no deal possible without the EU effectively dictating terms, then that mitigates the governmet's blame for the fallout.
But it all depends on what you expect the response of Barnier, Junker, Tusk, Verhofstadt, Merkel, Varadkar and the other Council members to be.
The EU's real red line is that the deal has to be clearly and permanently worse for us than membership. Why would we want that? Because we need access to the EU market and its regulatory system. Better than nothing but worse than what we had is a big negotiating space and it should be easy to find agreement. It's a difficult sell for the UK government however as Brexit was by choice and not a force of circumstance. No-one voted Leave with the intention of reducing their prospects, to make things more difficult for themselves and to make themselves poorer.
Once again you don’t value the political benefits of not being a member
Maybe the political benefits do exist and people do value them. However I see no evidence that Leavers consciously voted to reduce their prospects, to make things more difficult for themselves and to make themselves poorer. I see plenty of evidence of denial about the outcomes feeding into the political mess.
Morning all. I tweeted a few initial reflections @jamesamalcolm but I am holding off further judgement for now. What strikes me is the comment below about the EU red line being we get a worse deal than we have now with EU membership. How one responds to this, assuming it is correct, depends on your view of EU membership surely? For example, the EU may feel their centralizing model is an ideal, but if you disagree with that then removing yourself from it, even partially can be a gain, even if the EU construe it as a loss. In short, it may not necessarily be a zero sum game.
I don't think the EU is being unreasonable in insisting non membership has to be a downgrade. If you leave the golf club you should expect to play less golf; if you cancel your Sky package you should expect to watch less television. It's only a gain in the round if you don't think golf is worth playing or television not worth watching. Golf clubs and Sky both exist because people think their activities are worthwhile. So cancelling EU membership is only worth it if we don't value our trade and the prosperity it brings. The problem here is that the Leave campaign sold Brexit as zero cost.
In some ways, it's both. It *is* a basis for a deal if both sides were acting reasonably. However, the process so far has been marked by muddle and indecision on the British side, and intransigence and rigidity on the EU one. Because of that history (and also the nature of the people and institutions involved), I don't expect the EU to give it the attention it deserves, partly for ideological reasons - the dividing up of the Single Market and other apparent contradictions - but also because those have been the tactics that have served it well so far (in the narrow terms of the negotiation - it's doing a lot of damage to the UK-EU relationship that could last years or even decades).
I also think that that's a large part of the reason that the Brexit ministers signed up fairly readily. I'm sure they're not happy at the concessions but then they only count as concessions if they have to be honoured and they also mean that if there is a breakdown, Britain gets to play the good guy, which might not be a lot of help to someone who loses their job but it does put the government politically in the right place and if it is the case that there is no deal possible without the EU effectively dictating terms, then that mitigates the governmet's blame for the fallout.
But it all depends on what you expect the response of Barnier, Junker, Tusk, Verhofstadt, Merkel, Varadkar and the other Council members to be.
The EU's real red line is that the deal has to be clearly and permanently worse for us than membership. Why would we want that? Because we need access to the EU market and its regulatory system. Better than nothing but worse than what we had is a big negotiating space and it should be easy to find agreement. It's a difficult sell for the UK government however as Brexit was by choice and not a force of circumstance. No-one voted Leave with the intention of reducing their prospects, to make things more difficult for themselves and to make themselves poorer.
Once again you don’t value the political benefits of not being a member
Maybe the political benefits do exist and people do value them. However I see no evidence that Leavers consciously voted to reduce their prospects, to make things more difficult for themselves and to make themselves poorer. I see plenty of evidence of denial about the outcomes feeding into the political mess.
The Remain campaign made clear that they thought there would be negative economic consequences? Do you think voters ignored them completely? Isn’t it more likely that people balanced economics against (or head against heart if you prefer) and voted to leave
May has watered down her own red lines, despite a manifesto commitment. The EU needs to decide whether it will give a bit of flexibility or make the same mistake they did with Cameron's renegotiation.
then that mitigates the governmet's blame for the fallout.
But it all depends on what you expect the response of Barnier, Junker, Tusk, Verhofstadt, Merkel, Varadkar and the other Council members to be.
No-one voted Leave with the intention of reducing their prospects, to make things more difficult for themselves and to make themselves poorer.
Once again you don’t value the political benefits of not being a member
I see plenty of evidence of denial about the outcomes feeding into the political mess.
The Remain campaign made clear that they thought there would be negative economic consequences? Do you think voters ignored them completely? Isn’t it more likely that people balanced economics against (or head against heart if you prefer) and voted to leave
Lots of people thought different things. There are undoubtedly sections of the leave vote who weighed any possible downside and determined they wanted to leave. Those who did so include those who voted leave for very different reasons - the doggedly anti-immigrant voter and the home counties sovereignty fetishist both fall into that category. Many however, aren't that way - they perhaps voted leave out of a vague dislike of the EU or immigration, and bought some of Boris' and co's cake and eat it promises - which of course were monumental whoppers. Or perhaps they weren't up on the complexities of trade deals, as David Davis wasn't when he told everyone it'd be the EU begging us to sign up to something. Not their fault in particular - it's also Cameron's and the Remain campaign for failing to inform quite how complicated it was.
But that's been the problem with Brexit from the start - it was a vote for an abstract which could take many forms - some fantastical, others achievable but costly in ways some voters and politicians aren't prepared to countenance. It's arguably because we did things the wrong way round - a referendum might've worked if it was to endorse a government's detailed plan to leave, and given them a more rigid hand in negotiations and relative political immunity from the consequences. As it is, it's taken us two years to get to a proposal that's still implausible.
Comments
Come on England!
The neighbourhood where they live in do not like them because they are bloody foreigners.
My personal view is as long as the workers are paid at least the legal minimum wage I have no problem. We know very well how discerning the vast majority of customers are like. They like good produce and cheap. That's why paying sufficiently higher wages where the rural English working class will work will mean the farmers will be out of business very quickly. Apart from a few Lefty intellectualls , no one will buy the more expensive produce since it will be cheaper to import even after paying duties. And, their workers will receive far less than our minimum wage!
I am left of centre - in fact, more than just LoC. Ironically, I am almost Adam Smithsonian in my views. If we are going to have liberalised trade in goods, why not in labour. After all, it is an input just like capital. However, my view is not restricted to the EU only. Anyone can come. They will not have access to benefits but can work 48 hours a week - if necessary in 2 jobs. Or, even 60/72 hours a week for a limited period [say, 2 months max ]. These people want to work to earn money and buy land/property in their own country. They do not come here for benefits as it commonly believed.
As you said correctly, the reason they are disliked is not because they work in the farms but because they are here. It is simply racist.
Intrigued Vettel's 3, given his neck pain.
By 1996 I was grown up and sensible.
Italia 90, on a lads' holiday in Magaluf, was the defining tournament for me.
FoM requires that all EU citizens are treated identically to U.K. citizens
Since we have a non contributory welfare system that creates a problem
I like our non contributory system (although I wish there was a top-up facility) because a decent society should underpin certain protections for citizens.
But in any event a complete overhaul of our welfare and benefit system to allow us to restrict benefits to EU citizens is in the “NFW” category for politicians
52% voted to leave, so leave we must
48% voted to remain
A proportion of that 48% are in the “Carlotta/BigG” camp of “I voted to remain but the majority voted to leave so now I want to leave because that’s democracy”
The Tory wets [ about 15 of them ] are numerically not strong enough to do anything given the DUP votes.
I’m sure I read that a decent percentage are not applied but have no idea whether those are “major” ones or not
Edit: your link says 28% of EU laws are in force in Norway
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/07/uk-pre-qualifying-2018.html
Max up thread makes a lot of good points about how the Swiss tackle freedom of movement, we might have to change our benefits system to something similar in order to deter excessive immigration. We will be free to do that out our own pace if we want to, but that's not the sort of thing we could do by 2021.
I'm quite sympathetic to the school of "Fuck the EU, WTO it is", but I have to admit that it would probably be more sensible to take the whole process slowly and steadily.
In any event , those dynamics change if there were to be a second referendum.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeTrefgarne/status/1015482652424658944
Agreed, if it came to a vote in the whole Party electorate, she will be a goner!
Unsure if the classified under/over would be voided or not.
Or, was this the strategy all along ?
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1015563483272933376
It must be tempting for one of the Brexiteers to put out a statement saying something like "We've agreed to this for the good of the country. We do not anticipate any further concessions."
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/giant-sadiq-khan-baby-balloon-to-fly-over-london/comments/?
I wonder what the first post-Chequers poll will show? I'd expect a May bounce, GIN expects the opposite. Not expecting it to be durable either way - there's too much going on for the underlying position to change.
https://mobile.twitter.com/UKIP/status/1015569072040366081
But that's been the problem with Brexit from the start - it was a vote for an abstract which could take many forms - some fantastical, others achievable but costly in ways some voters and politicians aren't prepared to countenance. It's arguably because we did things the wrong way round - a referendum might've worked if it was to endorse a government's detailed plan to leave, and given them a more rigid hand in negotiations and relative political immunity from the consequences. As it is, it's taken us two years to get to a proposal that's still implausible.
Quite so.
And of course Mrs May will then offer further concessions.
I predict she will accept anything the commission asks for, including remaining.
Will several million tory(2017) voters disagree- it seems likely.
Cameron cracked under that pressure..