I think from scratch now laying the GOP in the Senate is the best bet for the Senate.
They have 47 seats RCP consider safe with highly likely MS2. That gets to 48, which means Democrat Maj bets fall short (At least for Betfair exchange rules).
There are 9 toss ups according to the polling. Perhaps NOM is the best bet, but it is a narrow target - and if the GOP get spanked everywhere does something odd happen in MS2 or Nebraska ?
I bet against Dems in Senate because of the rules... Now regretting that a bit tbh.
Mr. Blue, the nature of any second referendum would largely be down to the actual options available. The best hope for Remain is for the choices to be Remain, or May's Capitulation Deal, because it'll depress Leave turnout.
If it's Remain versus Leave, that'll come across as insulting the electorate by implying they got it wrong last time and have another chance to get it right by agreeing with the political class.
That’s why I said deal/no deal. There will be no second referendum with Remain as an option while May is PM.
Where do the numbers come from in parliament for a second referendum without Remain as an option?
4 million voted UKIP but not all of them voted reference Europe. For some it was simply a protest vote or a vote of disaffection following expenses, GFC, banking and other issues which made the Westminster bubble seem distant and out of touch. Daves term of office was spent on peripherals such as Leveson ( wheres that now ? ) or AV or pasty taxes. He didnt address issues which mattered to voters such as housing or infrastructure. Now maybe there was just no money so de facto he was pushed to window dressing but he wasnt very good at dressing windows and pissed off people needlessly. Telling Con supporters to sod off to UKIP and then complaining about the consequences when they did doesnt seem that clever to me.
Of course in these post-centre days that would be called conviction politics.
He told them to sod off and yet they still hang around, like a bad smell. Where I campaigned for the Cons at GE2017 (a constituency which went from being a Lab/Con marginal to a 12,000 Lab majority), a popular refrain from previous Cons voters was about the UKIP-isation of the party.
I, and I suspect many many others, would kill to get Dave back, right now. Who is your poster-boy/girl politician then? Like the ERG it's easy to criticise, but much more difficult to have an original thought.
currently theres no one who inspires,it's a bit like walking in to a restaurant and finding theres nothing you fancy on the menu. But politics is always a waiting game you get your good and your bad eras. I think one of the mistakes you partisan people can make is to immediately assume if theyre not with you theyre against you. The civil war in the Tory party I just find a turn off I am no more inclined to vote for Boris or JRM than I am for Osborne. When the tories get back to having someone who can manage a broad church they will be worth voting for.
As critics of contrarian investors might say, you may be right eventually but there's plenty of money to be made in the meantime.
We need politicians all the time and sadly can't restrict ourselves to the ones that we like. Doesn't mean that during bad eras you can't call them out. As for "you partisan people" - I dislike intensely the idea of a JRM or Boris premiership. That is not partisanship, that is sheer common bloody sense.
Mr. Blue, the nature of any second referendum would largely be down to the actual options available. The best hope for Remain is for the choices to be Remain, or May's Capitulation Deal, because it'll depress Leave turnout.
If it's Remain versus Leave, that'll come across as insulting the electorate by implying they got it wrong last time and have another chance to get it right by agreeing with the political class.
That’s why I said deal/no deal. There will be no second referendum with Remain as an option while May is PM.
Where do the numbers come from in parliament for a second referendum without Remain as an option?
I do not support a second referendum but if the ERG bring down TM deal then I would support a second referendum and of course remain would have to be an option. I oppose no deal Brexit 100%.
That’s very good data indeed, lowest unemployment number in 40 years (although they’d have changed the definition of unemployment a few times in that period).
Any second referendum would, rightly or wrongly, be won by Leave again on a democratic deficit argument.
Every angle would focus on the will of the people being ignored (in turn ignoring of course the referendum being held which would reflect, er, the will of the people).
4 million voted UKIP but not all of them voted reference Europe. For some it was simply a protest vote or a vote of disaffection following expenses, GFC, banking and other issues which made the Westminster bubble seem distant and out of touch. Daves term of office was spent on peripherals such as Leveson ( wheres that now ? ) or AV or pasty taxes. He didnt address issues which mattered to voters such as housing or infrastructure. Now maybe there was just no money so de facto he was pushed to window dressing but he wasnt very good at dressing windows and pissed off people needlessly. Telling Con supporters to sod off to UKIP and then complaining about the consequences when they did doesnt seem that clever to me.
Of course in these post-centre days that would be called conviction politics.
He told them to sod off and yet they still hang around, like a bad smell. Where I campaigned for the Cons at GE2017 (a constituency which went from being a Lab/Con marginal to a 12,000 Lab majority), a popular refrain from previous Cons voters was about the UKIP-isation of the party.
I, and I suspect many many others, would kill to get Dave back, right now. Who is your poster-boy/girl politician then? Like the ERG it's easy to criticise, but much more difficult to have an original thought.
currently theres worth voting for.
As critics of contrarian investors might say, you may be right eventually but there's plenty of money to be made in the meantime.
We need politicians all the time and sadly can't restrict ourselves to the ones that we like. Doesn't mean that during bad eras you can't call them out. As for "you partisan people" - I dislike intensely the idea of a JRM or Boris premiership. That is not partisanship, that is sheer common bloody sense.
thats one view, an alternative might be to stop voting for parties that have lost touch with their supporters.
it's one of the few levers voters have to bringing politicians back to their senses or changing the line up.
Ive never got to vote for a politician who offers everything I want ( that's no doubt a good thing !) but if they give me a fair spread of it thats fine. Its a broad church approach and at present I cant see anyone putting out that stall.
I know the boundary commission has an impossible job in some places given the population distribution they have to work with, but I would have thought London was a lot simpler to work with. How then have they ended up with Streatham and Brixton Hill? What an absurdity!
Any second referendum would, rightly or wrongly, be won by Leave again on a democratic deficit argument.
Every angle would focus on the will of the people being ignored (in turn ignoring of course the referendum being held which would reflect, er, the will of the people).
It would be very divisive and very unpredictable. That is why I support TM deal as the least worse option
Any second referendum would, rightly or wrongly, be won by Leave again on a democratic deficit argument.
Every angle would focus on the will of the people being ignored (in turn ignoring of course the referendum being held which would reflect, er, the will of the people).
Ask a sensible question that rules out a populist option and a campaign like that wouldn't do anything except suppress the Leave vote. It should be either Grim Brexit or No Brexit.
Wage growth looks mainly due to the 1.5m NHS workers getting their 3% pay rise the other month.
And there’s a serious shortage of carers. Social care is breaking down. Met a carer on Sunday who had a 30min slot booked for a somewhat confused and distressed elderly lady of my acquaintance.
Any second referendum would, rightly or wrongly, be won by Leave again on a democratic deficit argument.
Every angle would focus on the will of the people being ignored (in turn ignoring of course the referendum being held which would reflect, er, the will of the people).
Ask a sensible question that rules out a populist option and a campaign like that wouldn't do anything except suppress the Leave vote. It should be either Grim Brexit or No Brexit.
No one is going to rerun the output of the Gravity model of international trade. It will be the same lies although Liam Fox might have taken himself out of the game in that regard.
ot - Tesco's wine by the case is closing down and as a result they have some stonking deals if you're that way minded. A 2012, and a 2013 Cru Bourgeois each for £5 a bottle is an absolute steal and if you don't like it you can use it to poach pears.
Poached pear in red wine is a scandalous waste of both a good pear and red wine.
Are you overcooking them ?
Lightly poached (low heat, plenty of time) using a drinkable but reasonable red and a couple of sticks of cinnamon, served with the reduced poaching liquor, can be rather nice.
Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.
BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:
"Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."
good article
a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public
... until their job moves to the EU.
thats been happening for years and nobody gave a toss
Many foreign companies set up in the UK because we were part of the EU. Those are the ones who are already moving to other EU countries and we will see more of that depending on what finally happens. Your answer was a non-answer, totally fact-free.
oh dont be silly
multi nats have been closing UK facilities for years because were the cheapest place to sack workers - no social plan, few legal problems cheap redundancy. There are loads of examples.
The set up in the EU argument died on the accession of the Visegrad 4, suddenly we were no llonger the cheapest labour in town and the UK didnt have the social protections of mainland Europe. As a result it has been attrective for multinats to sell in the UK but move operations to lower cost countries or lower tax regimes.
UK workers have been watching their jobs go offshore for the last 20 years
"Last year the UK attracted 6% more foreign direct investment (FDI) projects that the previous year, according to figures compiled by EY in a survey of 450 global investors, but fell behind France, which grew by 31%, and the European average growth rate of 10%.
EY said the UK’s market share fell for the second successive year in 2017 and was likely to suffer a further decline as investors said they favoured Germany for the future."
Wage growth looks mainly due to the 1.5m NHS workers getting their 3% pay rise the other month.
And there’s a serious shortage of carers. Social care is breaking down. Met a carer on Sunday who had a 30min slot booked for a somewhat confused and distressed elderly lady of my acquaintance.
Surely the solution is higher pay and shorter shifts? Speaking to carers, they don’t dislike the job, they just dislike the 0 hour contracts, the poor pay and the very long shifts.
Any second referendum would, rightly or wrongly, be won by Leave again on a democratic deficit argument.
Every angle would focus on the will of the people being ignored (in turn ignoring of course the referendum being held which would reflect, er, the will of the people).
Ask a sensible question that rules out a populist option and a campaign like that wouldn't do anything except suppress the Leave vote. It should be either Grim Brexit or No Brexit.
No one is going to rerun the output of the Gravity model of international trade. It will be the same lies although Liam Fox might have taken himself out of the game in that regard.
To put it another way if the Leave side of the equation represents an endorsement of the last two years of the government's performance on Brexit, how can it hope to capture any protest votes?
ot - Tesco's wine by the case is closing down and as a result they have some stonking deals if you're that way minded. A 2012, and a 2013 Cru Bourgeois each for £5 a bottle is an absolute steal and if you don't like it you can use it to poach pears.
Poached pear in red wine is a scandalous waste of both a good pear and red wine.
Are you overcooking them ?
Lightly poached (low heat, plenty of time) using a drinkable but reasonable red and a couple of sticks of cinnamon, served with the reduced poaching liquor, can be rather nice.
But that’s like saying what would happen if I changed gears without using the clutch. It’s the process of change and lack of a transition to that change that would be an issue. The setting up or acquiring membership of bodies that our Eu membership in the past managed in our behalf that would just take time. Each can be moved as and when ready. So the regulatory process for air travel would continue as is until we set up our own and the transition is seemless. Or we come to an agreement that we buy into the existing setup. Same for customs and trade. We could have a transition period of many many years. Allowing the use of a clutch when we go from one system to another.
Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.
BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:
"Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."
good article
a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public
... until their job moves to the EU.
thats been happening for years and nobody gave a toss
Many foreign companies set up in the UK because we were part of the EU. Those are the ones who are already moving to other EU countries and we will see more of that depending on what finally happens. Your answer was a non-answer, totally fact-free.
oh dont be silly
multi nats have been closing UK facilities for years because were the cheapest place to sack workers - no social plan, few legal problems cheap redundancy. There are loads of examples.
The set up in the EU argument died on the accession of the Visegrad 4, suddenly we were no llonger the cheapest labour in town and the UK didnt have the social protections of mainland Europe. As a result it has been attrective for multinats to sell in the UK but move operations to lower cost countries or lower tax regimes.
UK workers have been watching their jobs go offshore for the last 20 years
"Last year the UK attracted 6% more foreign direct investment (FDI) projects that the previous year, according to figures compiled by EY in a survey of 450 global investors, but fell behind France, which grew by 31%, and the European average growth rate of 10%.
EY said the UK’s market share fell for the second successive year in 2017 and was likely to suffer a further decline as investors said they favoured Germany for the future."
Any second referendum would, rightly or wrongly, be won by Leave again on a democratic deficit argument.
Every angle would focus on the will of the people being ignored (in turn ignoring of course the referendum being held which would reflect, er, the will of the people).
Ask a sensible question that rules out a populist option and a campaign like that wouldn't do anything except suppress the Leave vote. It should be either Grim Brexit or No Brexit.
No one is going to rerun the output of the Gravity model of international trade. It will be the same lies although Liam Fox might have taken himself out of the game in that regard.
To put it another way if the Leave side of the equation represents an endorsement of the last two years of the government's performance on Brexit, how can it hope to capture any protest votes?
I think you will find that the overwhelming feeling would be, as the Graun article states, to "get on with it". Leavers will position themselves as the people who want to do just that while Remainers will be portrayed as the foot-draggers.
If people thought about it sensibly of course they would run a million miles from another Leave vote, but I believe that the campaign would be run on traitors and remoaners (large union set) and would be even more divisive than the last one.
But that’s like saying what would happen if I changed gears without using the clutch. It’s the process of change and lack of a transition to that change that would be an issue. The setting up or acquiring membership of bodies that our Eu membership in the past managed in our behalf that would just take time. Each can be moved as and when ready. So the regulatory process for air travel would continue as is until we set up our own and the transition is seemless. Or we come to an agreement that we buy into the existing setup. Same for customs and trade. We could have a transition period of many many years. Allowing the use of a clutch when we go from one system to another.
It really isn’t rocket science.
Changing gears without a clutch isn't difficult if you know what you are doing.
Any second referendum would, rightly or wrongly, be won by Leave again on a democratic deficit argument.
Every angle would focus on the will of the people being ignored (in turn ignoring of course the referendum being held which would reflect, er, the will of the people).
Ask a sensible question that rules out a populist option and a campaign like that wouldn't do anything except suppress the Leave vote. It should be either Grim Brexit or No Brexit.
No one is going to rerun the output of the Gravity model of international trade. It will be the same lies although Liam Fox might have taken himself out of the game in that regard.
To put it another way if the Leave side of the equation represents an endorsement of the last two years of the government's performance on Brexit, how can it hope to capture any protest votes?
What in your opinion should be the arguments put forward by the Remain side, in order to convince those who voted Leave last time to change their minds?
But that’s like saying what would happen if I changed gears without using the clutch. It’s the process of change and lack of a transition to that change that would be an issue. The setting up or acquiring membership of bodies that our Eu membership in the past managed in our behalf that would just take time. Each can be moved as and when ready. So the regulatory process for air travel would continue as is until we set up our own and the transition is seemless. Or we come to an agreement that we buy into the existing setup. Same for customs and trade. We could have a transition period of many many years. Allowing the use of a clutch when we go from one system to another.
It really isn’t rocket science.
Changing gears without a clutch isn't difficult if you know what you are doing.
The consequences of getting it wrong are pretty high though. Much better if you just use a clutch. And there’s a high probability that people don’t know what they are doing.
ot - Tesco's wine by the case is closing down and as a result they have some stonking deals if you're that way minded. A 2012, and a 2013 Cru Bourgeois each for £5 a bottle is an absolute steal and if you don't like it you can use it to poach pears.
Poached pear in red wine is a scandalous waste of both a good pear and red wine.
Are you overcooking them ?
Lightly poached (low heat, plenty of time) using a drinkable but reasonable red and a couple of sticks of cinnamon, served with the reduced poaching liquor, can be rather nice.
But that’s like saying what would happen if I changed gears without using the clutch. It’s the process of change and lack of a transition to that change that would be an issue. The setting up or acquiring membership of bodies that our Eu membership in the past managed in our behalf that would just take time. Each can be moved as and when ready. So the regulatory process for air travel would continue as is until we set up our own and the transition is seemless. Or we come to an agreement that we buy into the existing setup. Same for customs and trade. We could have a transition period of many many years. Allowing the use of a clutch when we go from one system to another.
It really isn’t rocket science.
Changing gears without a clutch isn't difficult if you know what you are doing.
The consequences of getting it wrong are pretty high though. Much better if you just use a clutch. And there’s a high probability that people don’t know what they are doing.
Always entertaining when Brexit arguments devolve into ones about metaphors.
Any second referendum would, rightly or wrongly, be won by Leave again on a democratic deficit argument.
Every angle would focus on the will of the people being ignored (in turn ignoring of course the referendum being held which would reflect, er, the will of the people).
Ask a sensible question that rules out a populist option and a campaign like that wouldn't do anything except suppress the Leave vote. It should be either Grim Brexit or No Brexit.
No one is going to rerun the output of the Gravity model of international trade. It will be the same lies although Liam Fox might have taken himself out of the game in that regard.
To put it another way if the Leave side of the equation represents an endorsement of the last two years of the government's performance on Brexit, how can it hope to capture any protest votes?
I think you will find that the overwhelming feeling would be, as the Graun article states, to "get on with it". Leavers will position themselves as the people who want to do just that while Remainers will be portrayed as the foot-draggers.
If people thought about it sensibly of course they would run a million miles from another Leave vote, but I believe that the campaign would be run on traitors and remoaners (large union set) and would be even more divisive than the last one.
I think the missing dynamic from that is that there will be prominent Brexiteers who subtly or not so subtly undermine the whole thing.
Imagine Farage going round saying, "The government has made such a mess of the negotiations, this deal is worse than membership. That's how bad it is." Serious Leave advocates will have to spend half their time justifying themselves to other Leavers.
But that’s like saying what would happen if I changed gears without using the clutch. It’s the process of change and lack of a transition to that change that would be an issue. The setting up or acquiring membership of bodies that our Eu membership in the past managed in our behalf that would just take time. Each can be moved as and when ready. So the regulatory process for air travel would continue as is until we set up our own and the transition is seemless. Or we come to an agreement that we buy into the existing setup. Same for customs and trade. We could have a transition period of many many years. Allowing the use of a clutch when we go from one system to another.
It really isn’t rocket science.
Changing gears without a clutch isn't difficult if you know what you are doing.
Indeed so, it’s very easy when you get the hang of it. Best practiced on a car that’s not yours though.
Thread on the fascist* maniac gathering support in Brazil, ahead of next years elections. And an important point about lazy journalism. https://twitter.com/Vinncent/status/1038777298172801025 *one of the few times this term is used accurately on social media!
Any second referendum would, rightly or wrongly, be won by Leave again on a democratic deficit argument.
Every angle would focus on the will of the people being ignored (in turn ignoring of course the referendum being held which would reflect, er, the will of the people).
Ask a sensible question that rules out a populist option and a campaign like that wouldn't do anything except suppress the Leave vote. It should be either Grim Brexit or No Brexit.
No one is going to rerun the output of the Gravity model of international trade. It will be the same lies although Liam Fox might have taken himself out of the game in that regard.
To put it another way if the Leave side of the equation represents an endorsement of the last two years of the government's performance on Brexit, how can it hope to capture any protest votes?
What in your opinion should be the arguments put forward by the Remain side, in order to convince those who voted Leave last time to change their minds?
"Even if you can't stand the EU, it makes no sense to leave. They'll just be able to think of endless new ways to make our lives a misery and we'll have no say. If you don't trust the French and Germans to respect our interests, don't leave them in a room alone."
Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.
BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:
But that’s like saying what would happen if I changed gears without using the clutch. It’s the process of change and lack of a transition to that change that would be an issue. The setting up or acquiring membership of bodies that our Eu membership in the past managed in our behalf that would just take time. Each can be moved as and when ready. So the regulatory process for air travel would continue as is until we set up our own and the transition is seemless. Or we come to an agreement that we buy into the existing setup. Same for customs and trade. We could have a transition period of many many years. Allowing the use of a clutch when we go from one system to another.
It really isn’t rocket science.
In pother words, ‘Just Leaving’ isn’t an option. And leaving bodies like Euratom, the EMA or Galileo is, quite frankly, stupid.
Any second referendum would, rightly or wrongly, be won by Leave again on a democratic deficit argument.
Every angle would focus on the will of the people being ignored (in turn ignoring of course the referendum being held which would reflect, er, the will of the people).
Ask a sensible question that rules out a populist option and a campaign like that wouldn't do anything except suppress the Leave vote. It should be either Grim Brexit or No Brexit.
No one is going to rerun the output of the Gravity model of international trade. It will be the same lies although Liam Fox might have taken himself out of the game in that regard.
To put it another way if the Leave side of the equation represents an endorsement of the last two years of the government's performance on Brexit, how can it hope to capture any protest votes?
What in your opinion should be the arguments put forward by the Remain side, in order to convince those who voted Leave last time to change their minds?
"Even if you can't stand the EU, it makes no sense to leave. They'll just be able to think of endless new ways to make our lives a misery and we'll have no say. If you don't trust the French and Germans to respect our interests, don't leave them in a room alone."
Rather like: ‘The sun never set on the British Empire because God didn’t trust the British in the dark!'
King Cole, the political class tying us so tightly to something the electorate didn't want is one of the reasons trust in them is so low.
and ifthe french and german politicians are consistently saying thyre pushing for ever closer union why do our politicians tell us the continentals dont really mean it ?
King Cole, the political class tying us so tightly to something the electorate didn't want is one of the reasons trust in them is so low.
The political class exercising judgement in a representative democracy, bringing unprecedented prosperity and peace across a continent while being perpetually savaged by jingoistic, reactionary morons obsessed with bananas is one of the great tragedies of our time.
But that’s like saying what would happen if I changed gears without using the clutch. It’s the process of change and lack of a transition to that change that would be an issue. The setting up or acquiring membership of bodies that our Eu membership in the past managed in our behalf that would just take time. Each can be moved as and when ready. So the regulatory process for air travel would continue as is until we set up our own and the transition is seemless. Or we come to an agreement that we buy into the existing setup. Same for customs and trade. We could have a transition period of many many years. Allowing the use of a clutch when we go from one system to another.
It really isn’t rocket science.
In pother words, ‘Just Leaving’ isn’t an option. And leaving bodies like Euratom, the EMA or Galileo is, quite frankly, stupid.
That’s why we suggested that we stay in the EMA and Galileo. But the EU didn’t see the value in collaborating with a near neighbour and friend.
King Cole, the political class tying us so tightly to something the electorate didn't want is one of the reasons trust in them is so low.
Up until about 2010 Europe wasn’t really an issue, except in the minds of Daily Mail leader writers and a few of John Major’s bastards. It’s instructive to remember that when we joined the EEC (yes, I know) the Mail’s front page proclaimed that ‘for ten years we have campaigned for this day. We have not wavered in our conviction that Britain’s best and brightest future is in Europe’.
But that’s like saying what would happen if I changed gears without using the clutch. It’s the process of change and lack of a transition to that change that would be an issue. The setting up or acquiring membership of bodies that our Eu membership in the past managed in our behalf that would just take time. Each can be moved as and when ready. So the regulatory process for air travel would continue as is until we set up our own and the transition is seemless. Or we come to an agreement that we buy into the existing setup. Same for customs and trade. We could have a transition period of many many years. Allowing the use of a clutch when we go from one system to another.
It really isn’t rocket science.
In pother words, ‘Just Leaving’ isn’t an option. And leaving bodies like Euratom, the EMA or Galileo is, quite frankly, stupid.
Yes a sensible negotiation would have us staying as members of these in the short to medium term, or long term if it’s the most practical solution. There’s pettiness happening all round though. Leaving the EU does not mean an end to cooperation when it is in all of our best interests. It might be better to be part of some of these it might be better to leave.
But that’s like saying what would happen if I changed gears without using the clutch. It’s the process of change and lack of a transition to that change that would be an issue. The setting up or acquiring membership of bodies that our Eu membership in the past managed in our behalf that would just take time. Each can be moved as and when ready. So the regulatory process for air travel would continue as is until we set up our own and the transition is seemless. Or we come to an agreement that we buy into the existing setup. Same for customs and trade. We could have a transition period of many many years. Allowing the use of a clutch when we go from one system to another.
It really isn’t rocket science.
In pother words, ‘Just Leaving’ isn’t an option. And leaving bodies like Euratom, the EMA or Galileo is, quite frankly, stupid.
That’s why we suggested that we stay in the EMA and Galileo. But the EU didn’t see the value in collaborating with a near neighbour and friend.
It's like kicking someone in the bollocks and then being perplexed that they drop you from their 5-aside team before a crucial match.
King Cole, the political class tying us so tightly to something the electorate didn't want is one of the reasons trust in them is so low.
Up until about 2010 Europe wasn’t really an issue, except in the minds of Daily Mail leader writers and a few of John Major’s bastards. It’s instructive to remember that when we joined the EEC (yes, I know) the Mail’s front page proclaimed that ‘for ten years we have campaigned for this day. We have not wavered in our conviction that Britain’s best and brightest future is in Europe’.
if it wasnt an issue why did Brown sign Lisbon behind closed doors instead of joyfully in the full glare of the worlds media with everyone else
But that’s like saying what would happen if I changed gears without using the clutch. It’s the process of change and lack of a transition to that change that would be an issue. The setting up or acquiring membership of bodies that our Eu membership in the past managed in our behalf that would just take time. Each can be moved as and when ready. So the regulatory process for air travel would continue as is until we set up our own and the transition is seemless. Or we come to an agreement that we buy into the existing setup. Same for customs and trade. We could have a transition period of many many years. Allowing the use of a clutch when we go from one system to another.
It really isn’t rocket science.
In pother words, ‘Just Leaving’ isn’t an option. And leaving bodies like Euratom, the EMA or Galileo is, quite frankly, stupid.
That’s why we suggested that we stay in the EMA and Galileo. But the EU didn’t see the value in collaborating with a near neighbour and friend.
It does highlight how we take for granted certain aspects of our relationship with the EU to the extent that we regard it as a punishment when leaving puts them at risk.
King Cole, the political class tying us so tightly to something the electorate didn't want is one of the reasons trust in them is so low.
Up until about 2010 Europe wasn’t really an issue, except in the minds of Daily Mail leader writers and a few of John Major’s bastards. It’s instructive to remember that when we joined the EEC (yes, I know) the Mail’s front page proclaimed that ‘for ten years we have campaigned for this day. We have not wavered in our conviction that Britain’s best and brightest future is in Europe’.
if it wasnt an issue why did Brown sign Lisbon behind closed doors instead of joyfully in the full glare of the worlds media with everyone else
So the regulatory process for air travel would continue as is until we set up our own
That requires us to sign a deal...
Nothing continues "as is" if the current arrangements expire because we are no longer signatories.
It really isn’t rocket science, but apparently beyond the grasp of some...
If the EU and the UK reach a point where they can’t strike a deal and insist that there’s no holding pattern, then yes it will be a massive calamity causing massive disruption and ruining relations for decades. What chances would you rate both no deal and no holding pattern/ stay as we are/ transition happening? It would be the single biggest act of peacetime economic self harm since the Chinese collectivisation of agrciulture. It would tip the continent and possibly the wrest into recession.
King Cole, the political class tying us so tightly to something the electorate didn't want is one of the reasons trust in them is so low.
Up until about 2010 Europe wasn’t really an issue, except in the minds of Daily Mail leader writers and a few of John Major’s bastards. It’s instructive to remember that when we joined the EEC (yes, I know) the Mail’s front page proclaimed that ‘for ten years we have campaigned for this day. We have not wavered in our conviction that Britain’s best and brightest future is in Europe’.
if it wasnt an issue why did Brown sign Lisbon behind closed doors instead of joyfully in the full glare of the worlds media with everyone else
And why Labour can say nothing on the biggest issue of the day:
"But in the polling, a net balance of 2% of voters said they would be less likely to vote for Labour if it backed a final referendum; 10% if the party backed a “hard Brexit”; and 13% if it backed a “soft Brexit”...."
King Cole, the political class tying us so tightly to something the electorate didn't want is one of the reasons trust in them is so low.
Up until about 2010 Europe wasn’t really an issue, except in the minds of Daily Mail leader writers and a few of John Major’s bastards. It’s instructive to remember that when we joined the EEC (yes, I know) the Mail’s front page proclaimed that ‘for ten years we have campaigned for this day. We have not wavered in our conviction that Britain’s best and brightest future is in Europe’.
if it wasnt an issue why did Brown sign Lisbon behind closed doors instead of joyfully in the full glare of the worlds media with everyone else
Because Brown was a prat. Might have been suitable as PM in 1997, but had, by the time he actually got there, become frustrated and bitter. By then, of course, Boris had embarked on his campaign of lies about, for example, the shape of bananas.
Mr. Blue, the nature of any second referendum would largely be down to the actual options available. The best hope for Remain is for the choices to be Remain, or May's Capitulation Deal, because it'll depress Leave turnout.
If it's Remain versus Leave, that'll come across as insulting the electorate by implying they got it wrong last time and have another chance to get it right by agreeing with the political class.
That’s why I said deal/no deal. There will be no second referendum with Remain as an option while May is PM.
Where do the numbers come from in parliament for a second referendum without Remain as an option?
If you removed the words from without onwards you would be more accurate. May won't want one, the Tories don't want one bar a few rebels, Tory members and activists don't want one and Corbyn is dead set against one. Even if you got parliamentary support for the principle there would be no agreement on the options for the ballot paper and there is no general election electoral mandate to hold one as there was in 2016.
But that’s like saying what would happen if I changed gears without using the clutch. It’s the process of change and lack of a transition to that change that would be an issue. The setting up or acquiring membership of bodies that our Eu membership in the past managed in our behalf that would just take time. Each can be moved as and when ready. So the regulatory process for air travel would continue as is until we set up our own and the transition is seemless. Or we come to an agreement that we buy into the existing setup. Same for customs and trade. We could have a transition period of many many years. Allowing the use of a clutch when we go from one system to another.
It really isn’t rocket science.
Changing gears without a clutch isn't difficult if you know what you are doing.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea. Even if you've got the right foot of Fangio and the wrist action of Adam Werrity you're still going to fuck the synchro rings,cones and/or dog teeth sooner or later.
Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.
BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:
Any second referendum would, rightly or wrongly, be won by Leave again on a democratic deficit argument.
Every angle would focus on the will of the people being ignored (in turn ignoring of course the referendum being held which would reflect, er, the will of the people).
Ask a sensible question that rules out a populist option and a campaign like that wouldn't do anything except suppress the Leave vote. It should be either Grim Brexit or No Brexit.
No one is going to rerun the output of the Gravity model of international trade. It will be the same lies although Liam Fox might have taken himself out of the game in that regard.
To put it another way if the Leave side of the equation represents an endorsement of the last two years of the government's performance on Brexit, how can it hope to capture any protest votes?
What in your opinion should be the arguments put forward by the Remain side, in order to convince those who voted Leave last time to change their minds?
"Even if you can't stand the EU, it makes no sense to leave. They'll just be able to think of endless new ways to make our lives a misery and we'll have no say. If you don't trust the French and Germans to respect our interests, don't leave them in a room alone."
Mr. Anorak, Bosnia and Ukraine suggest peace across the continent is not universal.
Also, there was prolonged peace after the Napoleonic Wars, if we're using loose definitions. And there's also been prolonged peace between the UK and Canada. Happily, modern democratic nation-states tend not to war with one another.
King Cole, as integration rose so did discontent. The reneging of the Lisbon Treaty was a critical (and very stupid) moment.
Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.
BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:
Claims that schools in the north of England are worse than those in the south are based on myth and bad data, according to a large-scale research project that calls into question the education policies of successive governments.
The study also challenges the idea that selective grammar schools or academies are more likely to improve pupil progress overall than community comprehensives, tracing the progress of 1.8 million pupils, their social, family and economic backgrounds and the type of schools they attended.
Mr. Anorak, Bosnia and Ukraine suggest peace across the continent is not universal.
Also, there was prolonged peace after the Napoleonic Wars, if we're using loose definitions. And there's also been prolonged peace between the UK and Canada. Happily, modern democratic nation-states tend not to war with one another.
King Cole, as integration rose so did discontent. The reneging of the Lisbon Treaty was a critical (and very stupid) moment.
What was the conflict count between the UK and Canada before the benison of modern, democratic nation statery fell upon us?
ot - Tesco's wine by the case is closing down and as a result they have some stonking deals if you're that way minded. A 2012, and a 2013 Cru Bourgeois each for £5 a bottle is an absolute steal and if you don't like it you can use it to poach pears.
King Cole, the political class tying us so tightly to something the electorate didn't want is one of the reasons trust in them is so low.
Up until about 2010 Europe wasn’t really an issue, except in the minds of Daily Mail leader writers and a few of John Major’s bastards. It’s instructive to remember that when we joined the EEC (yes, I know) the Mail’s front page proclaimed that ‘for ten years we have campaigned for this day. We have not wavered in our conviction that Britain’s best and brightest future is in Europe’.
Claims that schools in the north of England are worse than those in the south are based on myth and bad data, according to a large-scale research project that calls into question the education policies of successive governments.
The study also challenges the idea that selective grammar schools or academies are more likely to improve pupil progress overall than community comprehensives, tracing the progress of 1.8 million pupils, their social, family and economic backgrounds and the type of schools they attended.
But that’s like saying what would happen if I changed gears without using the clutch. It’s the process of change and lack of a transition to that change that would be an issue. The setting up or acquiring membership of bodies that our Eu membership in the past managed in our behalf that would just take time. Each can be moved as and when ready. So the regulatory process for air travel would continue as is until we set up our own and the transition is seemless. Or we come to an agreement that we buy into the existing setup. Same for customs and trade. We could have a transition period of many many years. Allowing the use of a clutch when we go from one system to another.
It really isn’t rocket science.
In pother words, ‘Just Leaving’ isn’t an option. And leaving bodies like Euratom, the EMA or Galileo is, quite frankly, stupid.
That’s why we suggested that we stay in the EMA and Galileo. But the EU didn’t see the value in collaborating with a near neighbour and friend.
It's like kicking someone in the bollocks and then being perplexed that they drop you from their 5-aside team before a crucial match.
Not really. In fact, not at all.
Saying “I don’t want to continue to progress towards a political union so let’s go our separate ways as friends” shouldn’t be taken as “kicking someone in the bullocks”
Mr. Anorak, Bosnia and Ukraine suggest peace across the continent is not universal.
Also, there was prolonged peace after the Napoleonic Wars, if we're using loose definitions. And there's also been prolonged peace between the UK and Canada. Happily, modern democratic nation-states tend not to war with one another.
King Cole, as integration rose so did discontent. The reneging of the Lisbon Treaty was a critical (and very stupid) moment.
Neither the former Yugoslav republics or Ukraine are/were in the EU, so that just adds to the argument of peace.
Europe was a collective state of PTSD after the Napoleonic wars, and minor skirmishes and border disputes went on at a low level continuously. Fair point on modern, democratic states, the transformation of much of Eastern Europe to gain accession, and then comply with EU memberships rules, has been one of the Union's greatest achievements.
I'm beginning to think there's hope that a Europhilic Morris can yet emerge!
King Cole, the political class tying us so tightly to something the electorate didn't want is one of the reasons trust in them is so low.
Up until about 2010 Europe wasn’t really an issue, except in the minds of Daily Mail leader writers and a few of John Major’s bastards. It’s instructive to remember that when we joined the EEC (yes, I know) the Mail’s front page proclaimed that ‘for ten years we have campaigned for this day. We have not wavered in our conviction that Britain’s best and brightest future is in Europe’.
It's almost as if opinions change over 45 years.
So you’d be happy with a second referendum?
For the avoidance of doubt I ‘remain’ to be convinced it would go the way I’d prefer!
But that’s like saying what would happen if I changed gears without using the clutch. It’s the process of change and lack of a transition to that change that would be an issue. The setting up or acquiring membership of bodies that our Eu membership in the past managed in our behalf that would just take time. Each can be moved as and when ready. So the regulatory process for air travel would continue as is until we set up our own and the transition is seemless. Or we come to an agreement that we buy into the existing setup. Same for customs and trade. We could have a transition period of many many years. Allowing the use of a clutch when we go from one system to another.
It really isn’t rocket science.
Changing gears without a clutch isn't difficult if you know what you are doing.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea. Even if you've got the right foot of Fangio and the wrist action of Adam Werrity you're still going to fuck the synchro rings,cones and/or dog teeth sooner or later.
Mr. Divvie, never heard the word 'benison' before, so cheers for introducing me to it.
As for your comment: attributing peace to the EU is nonsensical. The UK is in the EU, Canada is not. Neither have been at war with one another recently. We could equally add the US, Brazil, and Mongolia. And Switzerland, for that matter.
Mr. Eagles, as Tim Minchin[sp] once said, all we ask of travellers it that they travel.
King Cole, the political class tying us so tightly to something the electorate didn't want is one of the reasons trust in them is so low.
Up until about 2010 Europe wasn’t really an issue, except in the minds of Daily Mail leader writers and a few of John Major’s bastards. It’s instructive to remember that when we joined the EEC (yes, I know) the Mail’s front page proclaimed that ‘for ten years we have campaigned for this day. We have not wavered in our conviction that Britain’s best and brightest future is in Europe’.
It's almost as if opinions change over 45 years.
And the European project has changed as well. What we joined in the 1970s is not what we are leaving now.
Mr. Anorak, I like Europe. My main historical interest is that of Italy, after all.
But the EU is not Europe. It is not wise. Its construction is fundamentally flawed. The underhand means by which we've been bound so close to it is unwanted.
A trade bloc is one thing. The EU is quite another. The sooner it disintegrates the better, because the taller you build an unstable edifice the greater the carnage when it crumbles.
Claims that schools in the north of England are worse than those in the south are based on myth and bad data, according to a large-scale research project that calls into question the education policies of successive governments.
The study also challenges the idea that selective grammar schools or academies are more likely to improve pupil progress overall than community comprehensives, tracing the progress of 1.8 million pupils, their social, family and economic backgrounds and the type of schools they attended.
King Cole, the political class tying us so tightly to something the electorate didn't want is one of the reasons trust in them is so low.
Up until about 2010 Europe wasn’t really an issue, except in the minds of Daily Mail leader writers and a few of John Major’s bastards. It’s instructive to remember that when we joined the EEC (yes, I know) the Mail’s front page proclaimed that ‘for ten years we have campaigned for this day. We have not wavered in our conviction that Britain’s best and brightest future is in Europe’.
It's almost as if opinions change over 45 years.
And the European project has changed as well. What we joined in the 1970s is not what we are leaving now.
It’s the project we helped to develop. I don’t, for example, recall us objecting to direct elections to the European Parliament.
Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.
BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:
King Cole, the political class tying us so tightly to something the electorate didn't want is one of the reasons trust in them is so low.
Up until about 2010 Europe wasn’t really an issue, except in the minds of Daily Mail leader writers and a few of John Major’s bastards. It’s instructive to remember that when we joined the EEC (yes, I know) the Mail’s front page proclaimed that ‘for ten years we have campaigned for this day. We have not wavered in our conviction that Britain’s best and brightest future is in Europe’.
It's almost as if opinions change over 45 years.
And the European project has changed as well. What we joined in the 1970s is not what we are leaving now.
But the xenophobic lies used to prise Britain out of the EU don't concern you at all.
Odd, given your obsession about Labour anti-Semitism.
Claims that schools in the north of England are worse than those in the south are based on myth and bad data, according to a large-scale research project that calls into question the education policies of successive governments.
The study also challenges the idea that selective grammar schools or academies are more likely to improve pupil progress overall than community comprehensives, tracing the progress of 1.8 million pupils, their social, family and economic backgrounds and the type of schools they attended.
Notice you didn't bold this bit... ...Senior politicians, including George Osborne, the former chancellor, have also raised concerns about the north-south education gap.
Gorard’s findings, in his new book Education Policy: Evidence of equity and effectiveness, are likely to be uncomfortable reading for policymakers. Instead of experimenting with different types of school, the evidence suggests the government should be directing even more resources to improving the life chances of disadvantaged children, he says...
Note that the thrust of the article isn't for, or against, grammar schools - or any other particular arrangement - in fact he appears to be arguing the mix of school types doesn't make any difference.
My anecdotage would tend to agree with him, which is why I'm in favour of pluralism in the eduction system. The pre-school homelife of children probably does as much as anything to determine their educational outcomes, on average.
King Cole, the political class tying us so tightly to something the electorate didn't want is one of the reasons trust in them is so low.
Up until about 2010 Europe wasn’t really an issue, except in the minds of Daily Mail leader writers and a few of John Major’s bastards. It’s instructive to remember that when we joined the EEC (yes, I know) the Mail’s front page proclaimed that ‘for ten years we have campaigned for this day. We have not wavered in our conviction that Britain’s best and brightest future is in Europe’.
It's almost as if opinions change over 45 years.
And the European project has changed as well. What we joined in the 1970s is not what we are leaving now.
It’s the project we helped to develop. I don’t, for example, recall us objecting to direct elections to the European Parliament.
I suspect we’re not going to agree, of course!
I am not disagreeing that we were part of the development - but it is surely less than honest to compare attitudes towards one thing from the 70s to attitudes to a different thing now and not put that fully into context.
I personally have no problems with being part of Europe or considering European as part of my wider cultural heritage.
However I have, for many years, had concerned about the direction of travel of the EU as a project, and, in particular, with the effect of the European courts on our UK legal systems and legislatures.
I did vote Remain but I cannot say that I would do so now. I certainly would never vote to return to the EU once we have left.
King Cole, the political class tying us so tightly to something the electorate didn't want is one of the reasons trust in them is so low.
Up until about 2010 Europe wasn’t really an issue, except in the minds of Daily Mail leader writers and a few of John Major’s bastards. It’s instructive to remember that when we joined the EEC (yes, I know) the Mail’s front page proclaimed that ‘for ten years we have campaigned for this day. We have not wavered in our conviction that Britain’s best and brightest future is in Europe’.
if it wasnt an issue why did Brown sign Lisbon behind closed doors instead of joyfully in the full glare of the worlds media with everyone else
Because Brown was a prat. Might have been suitable as PM in 1997, but had, by the time he actually got there, become frustrated and bitter. By then, of course, Boris had embarked on his campaign of lies about, for example, the shape of bananas.
OKC he was always unhinged and should never have been let near PM or any other responsible job for that matter.
Claims that schools in the north of England are worse than those in the south are based on myth and bad data, according to a large-scale research project that calls into question the education policies of successive governments.
The study also challenges the idea that selective grammar schools or academies are more likely to improve pupil progress overall than community comprehensives, tracing the progress of 1.8 million pupils, their social, family and economic backgrounds and the type of schools they attended.
Claims that schools in the north of England are worse than those in the south are based on myth and bad data, according to a large-scale research project that calls into question the education policies of successive governments.
The study also challenges the idea that selective grammar schools or academies are more likely to improve pupil progress overall than community comprehensives, tracing the progress of 1.8 million pupils, their social, family and economic backgrounds and the type of schools they attended.
Claims that schools in the north of England are worse than those in the south are based on myth and bad data, according to a large-scale research project that calls into question the education policies of successive governments.
The study also challenges the idea that selective grammar schools or academies are more likely to improve pupil progress overall than community comprehensives, tracing the progress of 1.8 million pupils, their social, family and economic backgrounds and the type of schools they attended.
Prediction - PB Grammarians will assure us personal anecdote beats wide scale data.
Again.
We do of course have state selective education. It's called selection by property prices and your ability to afford a home in the catchment area of the best state schools! At least I suppose the 11 plus was on merit.
It's just a shame the left wing liberal middle classes in London and elsewhere weren't just a lot more honest and paid extra to send their kids to private school rather than taking out a bigger mortgage to achieve the same effect in all but name.
They will always seek to preserve the current system - cos it keeps the poor in their place and they can look so right on sending their kids to the best state schools. A case of pulling up the drawbridge.
Mr. Anorak, I like Europe. My main historical interest is that of Italy, after all.
But the EU is not Europe. It is not wise. Its construction is fundamentally flawed. The underhand means by which we've been bound so close to it is unwanted.
A trade bloc is one thing. The EU is quite another. The sooner it disintegrates the better, because the taller you build an unstable edifice the greater the carnage when it crumbles.
Just nonsense. Of course the EU is flawed, with a significant democratic deficit, but then so is the UK. But from a historical perspective there is no disputing that the EU has been a significant force for good.
I write from a trattoria in northern Italy. Every park we have been to has large numbers of African migrants hanging about, some obviously sleeping there, and every litter bin in town has been turned out by people looking for food or something to sell. The same in Munich en route. If there is a crisis it is one of migration from Syria and sub-S Africa, which would have been happening with or without the EU. At least the EU offers the prospect of a more co-ordinated response.
Mr. B2, you can't assess the historical impact of a body before it's known.
Your choice of migration, given free travel within the EU and Germany's unilateral siren call for everyone to come, is perhaps not the best for arguing the wonderfulness of the EU.
Multilateral co-operation does not require the existence of the EU.
Mr. Anorak, I like Europe. My main historical interest is that of Italy, after all.
But the EU is not Europe. It is not wise. Its construction is fundamentally flawed. The underhand means by which we've been bound so close to it is unwanted.
A trade bloc is one thing. The EU is quite another. The sooner it disintegrates the better, because the taller you build an unstable edifice the greater the carnage when it crumbles.
Just nonsense. Of course the EU is flawed, with a significant democratic deficit, but then so is the UK. But from a historical perspective there is no disputing that the EU has been a significant force for good.
I write from a trattoria in northern Italy. Every park we have been to has large numbers of African migrants hanging about, some obviously sleeping there, and every litter bin in town has been turned out by people looking for food or something to sell. The same in Munich en route. If there is a crisis it is one of migration from Syria and sub-S Africa, which would have been happening with or without the EU. At least the EU offers the prospect of a more co-ordinated response.
I’m not saying this would be a good thing but I suspect there’d have been a much harder response to trans-Mediterranean migration by nations like Italy, Spain and Greece in the absence of the EU. That might include preventing pick up of boats leaving North Africa by NGOs, repelling boats at the shore and escorting them back to North Africa, together with military occupation of parts of the shoreline and destruction of trafficking infrastructure.
It’s far from clear if German “invitations” - together with pan European redistribution by quota - haven’t simply encouraged it either.
King Cole, the political class tying us so tightly to something the electorate didn't want is one of the reasons trust in them is so low.
Up until about 2010 Europe wasn’t really an issue, except in the minds of Daily Mail leader writers and a few of John Major’s bastards. It’s instructive to remember that when we joined the EEC (yes, I know) the Mail’s front page proclaimed that ‘for ten years we have campaigned for this day. We have not wavered in our conviction that Britain’s best and brightest future is in Europe’.
It's almost as if opinions change over 45 years.
And the European project has changed as well. What we joined in the 1970s is not what we are leaving now.
This is a hoary old canard churned out by leavers. The anecdote is to do some research into the commentary contemporary to the 1975 referendum, and to ask the question why, if all we wanted was the economic union (which the UK did more than anyone to create), why said leavers are SO hostile to any suggestion that we should stay within it now?
Mr. B2, you can't assess the historical impact of a body before it's known.
Your choice of migration, given free travel within the EU and Germany's unilateral siren call for everyone to come, is perhaps not the best for arguing the wonderfulness of the EU.
Multilateral co-operation does not require the existence of the EU.
Lol. Given your earlier post, surely you meant to say that I can't, but you somehow can?
King Cole, the political class tying us so tightly to something the electorate didn't want is one of the reasons trust in them is so low.
Up until about 2010 Europe wasn’t really an issue, except in the minds of Daily Mail leader writers and a few of John Major’s bastards. It’s instructive to remember that when we joined the EEC (yes, I know) the Mail’s front page proclaimed that ‘for ten years we have campaigned for this day. We have not wavered in our conviction that Britain’s best and brightest future is in Europe’.
It's almost as if opinions change over 45 years.
And the European project has changed as well. What we joined in the 1970s is not what we are leaving now.
It’s the project we helped to develop. I don’t, for example, recall us objecting to direct elections to the European Parliament.
I suspect we’re not going to agree, of course!
I am not disagreeing that we were part of the development - but it is surely less than honest to compare attitudes towards one thing from the 70s to attitudes to a different thing now and not put that fully into context.
I personally have no problems with being part of Europe or considering European as part of my wider cultural heritage.
However I have, for many years, had concerned about the direction of travel of the EU as a project, and, in particular, with the effect of the European courts on our UK legal systems and legislatures.
I did vote Remain but I cannot say that I would do so now. I certainly would never vote to return to the EU once we have left.
I spent (too much?) of my formative years writing ‘compare and contrast’ essay’s; as I recall they were a feature of biological subjects ‘A’ levels! So I cannot helping comparing and contrasting attitudes of opinion formers then and now. I agree about Europe and our mutual culture, but TBH I’m not as bothered about the effect on our legal system. As it stands I would vote Rejoin, although I suppose that the circumstances might change enough for me vote differently.
Comments
UK unemployment falls by 55,000
Wages, excluding bonuses, grew by a faster-than-expected 2.9% compared with a year ago.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45481485
What if there's no Brexit deal?
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8397
Published yesterday.
Apologies if already posted.
We need politicians all the time and sadly can't restrict ourselves to the ones that we like. Doesn't mean that during bad eras you can't call them out. As for "you partisan people" - I dislike intensely the idea of a JRM or Boris premiership. That is not partisanship, that is sheer common bloody sense.
Every angle would focus on the will of the people being ignored (in turn ignoring of course the referendum being held which would reflect, er, the will of the people).
it's one of the few levers voters have to bringing politicians back to their senses or changing the line up.
Ive never got to vote for a politician who offers everything I want ( that's no doubt a good thing !) but if they give me a fair spread of it thats fine. Its a broad church approach and at present I cant see anyone putting out that stall.
Met a carer on Sunday who had a 30min slot booked for a somewhat confused and distressed elderly lady of my acquaintance.
Lightly poached (low heat, plenty of time) using a drinkable but reasonable red and a couple of sticks of cinnamon, served with the reduced poaching liquor, can be rather nice.
EY said the UK’s market share fell for the second successive year in 2017 and was likely to suffer a further decline as investors said they favoured Germany for the future."
It really isn’t rocket science.
If people thought about it sensibly of course they would run a million miles from another Leave vote, but I believe that the campaign would be run on traitors and remoaners (large union set) and would be even more divisive than the last one.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/10/swing-voters-say-labour-is-the-party-of-quinoa
Nothing continues "as is" if the current arrangements expire because we are no longer signatories.
It really isn’t rocket science, but apparently beyond the grasp of some...
Imagine Farage going round saying, "The government has made such a mess of the negotiations, this deal is worse than membership. That's how bad it is." Serious Leave advocates will have to spend half their time justifying themselves to other Leavers.
Macron still not creating enough jobs
http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2018/09/11/20002-20180911ARTFIG00059-les-creations-d-emplois-ont-marque-le-pas-au-deuxieme-trimestre.php
https://twitter.com/Vinncent/status/1038777298172801025 *one of the few times this term is used accurately on social media!
Israel/Palestine and Brexit will greatly animate a minority but not floating voters in the vast majority of marginals.
I trust Juncker more than our lot
It’s instructive to remember that when we joined the EEC (yes, I know) the Mail’s front page proclaimed that ‘for ten years we have campaigned for this day. We have not wavered in our conviction that Britain’s best and brightest future is in Europe’.
If the EU and the UK reach a point where they can’t strike a deal and insist that there’s no holding pattern, then yes it will be a massive calamity causing massive disruption and ruining relations for decades.
What chances would you rate both no deal and no holding pattern/ stay as we are/ transition happening? It would be the single biggest act of peacetime economic self harm since the Chinese collectivisation of agrciulture. It would tip the continent and possibly the wrest into recession.
"But in the polling, a net balance of 2% of voters said they would be less likely to vote for Labour if it backed a final referendum; 10% if the party backed a “hard Brexit”; and 13% if it backed a “soft Brexit”...."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45481485
By then, of course, Boris had embarked on his campaign of lies about, for example, the shape of bananas.
https://twitter.com/JohnnyMercerUK/status/1039453198703054849
This was Macca as Lee J Cobb.
That's most likely a minority view !
Also, there was prolonged peace after the Napoleonic Wars, if we're using loose definitions. And there's also been prolonged peace between the UK and Canada. Happily, modern democratic nation-states tend not to war with one another.
King Cole, as integration rose so did discontent. The reneging of the Lisbon Treaty was a critical (and very stupid) moment.
Claims that schools in the north of England are worse than those in the south are based on myth and bad data, according to a large-scale research project that calls into question the education policies of successive governments.
The study also challenges the idea that selective grammar schools or academies are more likely to improve pupil progress overall than community comprehensives, tracing the progress of 1.8 million pupils, their social, family and economic backgrounds and the type of schools they attended.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/sep/11/nort-south-schools-divide-not-supported-by-evidence?CMP=share_btn_tw
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12181385/Wages-for-British-workers-will-rise-in-the-event-of-a-Brexit-head-of-in-campaign-says.html
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1039438278301282305
Again.
https://twitter.com/Gilofthepeople/status/1039457421863862273
Saying “I don’t want to continue to progress towards a political union so let’s go our separate ways as friends” shouldn’t be taken as “kicking someone in the bullocks”
Europe was a collective state of PTSD after the Napoleonic wars, and minor skirmishes and border disputes went on at a low level continuously. Fair point on modern, democratic states, the transformation of much of Eastern Europe to gain accession, and then comply with EU memberships rules, has been one of the Union's greatest achievements.
I'm beginning to think there's hope that a Europhilic Morris can yet emerge!
For the avoidance of doubt I ‘remain’ to be convinced it would go the way I’d prefer!
https://www.goodwood.com/grrc/race/historic/2017/5/fangios-1957--his-greatest-season-relived-part-2/
As for your comment: attributing peace to the EU is nonsensical. The UK is in the EU, Canada is not. Neither have been at war with one another recently. We could equally add the US, Brazil, and Mongolia. And Switzerland, for that matter.
Mr. Eagles, as Tim Minchin[sp] once said, all we ask of travellers it that they travel.
But the EU is not Europe. It is not wise. Its construction is fundamentally flawed. The underhand means by which we've been bound so close to it is unwanted.
A trade bloc is one thing. The EU is quite another. The sooner it disintegrates the better, because the taller you build an unstable edifice the greater the carnage when it crumbles.
I suspect it will trigger a few people.
I suspect we’re not going to agree, of course!
I.e. not very, unless it directly affects them or someone they know.
Odd, given your obsession about Labour anti-Semitism.
...Senior politicians, including George Osborne, the former chancellor, have also raised concerns about the north-south education gap.
Gorard’s findings, in his new book Education Policy: Evidence of equity and effectiveness, are likely to be uncomfortable reading for policymakers. Instead of experimenting with different types of school, the evidence suggests the government should be directing even more resources to improving the life chances of disadvantaged children, he says...
Note that the thrust of the article isn't for, or against, grammar schools - or any other particular arrangement - in fact he appears to be arguing the mix of school types doesn't make any difference.
My anecdotage would tend to agree with him, which is why I'm in favour of pluralism in the eduction system. The pre-school homelife of children probably does as much as anything to determine their educational outcomes, on average.
I personally have no problems with being part of Europe or considering European as part of my wider cultural heritage.
However I have, for many years, had concerned about the direction of travel of the EU as a project, and, in particular, with the effect of the European courts on our UK legal systems and legislatures.
I did vote Remain but I cannot say that I would do so now. I certainly would never vote to return to the EU once we have left.
It's just a shame the left wing liberal middle classes in London and elsewhere weren't just a lot more honest and paid extra to send their kids to private school rather than taking out a bigger mortgage to achieve the same effect in all but name.
They will always seek to preserve the current system - cos it keeps the poor in their place and they can look so right on sending their kids to the best state schools. A case of pulling up the drawbridge.
I write from a trattoria in northern Italy. Every park we have been to has large numbers of African migrants hanging about, some obviously sleeping there, and every litter bin in town has been turned out by people looking for food or something to sell. The same in Munich en route. If there is a crisis it is one of migration from Syria and sub-S Africa, which would have been happening with or without the EU. At least the EU offers the prospect of a more co-ordinated response.
Your choice of migration, given free travel within the EU and Germany's unilateral siren call for everyone to come, is perhaps not the best for arguing the wonderfulness of the EU.
Multilateral co-operation does not require the existence of the EU.
It’s far from clear if German “invitations” - together with pan European redistribution by quota - haven’t simply encouraged it either.
I agree about Europe and our mutual culture, but TBH I’m not as bothered about the effect on our legal system.
As it stands I would vote Rejoin, although I suppose that the circumstances might change enough for me vote differently.