Apart from the current balance of the House of Commons. And the House of Lords. And the judiciary. And the civil service. And the BBC. And Londoners. And the university towns. Young people in general, actually.
Northern Ireland can be dispensed with too, given the problems it causes. Scotland as well, if necessary. The car industry can be sacrificed if its needs get in the way.
So Leavers are looking for a Brexit for aged rural England and Wales. Always provided they don't get in the way either.
Not actually true, plenty of immigrants to Chelsea, Putney, Bromley and the Home Counties and plenty of Poles in Lincolnshire. Though what most Tories want is greater control of immigration, not an end to immigration
Absolutely old boy! Can't let the wrong sort in! Eh, what?
I would also remind you over a third of Labour voters and a majority of Labour seats voted Leave, in large part because of immigration concerns
The mistake that many people make though, I suspect, is that because many voters supported Leave it must be a key salient issue for them. The reality is likely to be different - for most voters it is a low-level highly technical issue which swings relatively few votes.There is a big difference between seeing an issue as 'important' - which Brexit clearly is - and 'salient' - which it probably is not ( London may be an exception in some areas). I also tend to the view that the wide variations in election results across the UK in 2017 owed far more to attitudes to Corbyn - rather than Brexit.Corbyn is a much more salient factor - and ,in particular, he alienates many traditional white working class Labour voters.Crucial to Labour's prospects next time is the extent to which they remain alienated.
Corbyn neutralised the Brexit issue in 2017 by matching May's commitment to leave the EU and single market and end free movement while also promising to retain the benefits of the Customs Union and single market.
He cannot have his cake and eat it for both Labour Remain and Leave voters for ever
I don't think that is the point at all. For most voters - whether Leavers or Remainers - Brexit is a highly technical issue which few claim to have indepth understanding of . Indeed the vast majority of voters appear to be thoroughly fed up with and bored by the topic and are keen to move on. Corbyn's success in 2017 lay ,I believe, in being to change the subject of debate in the campaign to matters people were able to relate to. He found a very receptive audience - which is why the 2017 election turned out not to be a Brexit election once the campaign got under way. Personally I will be very surprised if the next election - even if called this Autumn - proves to be any more dominated by Brexit than was the last one.It is an issue that connects much better with the commentariat than the electorate at large.
My guess is, if the UK pulls out of co-operation with the EU on defence, Trump will see it as a great opportunity to ratchet up the pressure on Germany to spend more on defence by threatening to scale back US commitments, possibly by announcing simultaneously greater co-operation amongst the Five Eyes. Merkel might end up getting more than she bargained for.
Yes, that is probably where this ends up. Though I expect our long terms defence and intelligence agreement with France won't change.
Apart from the current balance of the House of Commons. And the House of Lords. And the judiciary. And the civil service. And the BBC. And Londoners. And the university towns. Young people in general, actually.
Northern Ireland can be dispensed with too, given the problems it causes. Scotland as well, if necessary. The car industry can be sacrificed if its needs get in the way.
So Leavers are looking for a Brexit for aged rural England and Wales. Always provided they don't get in the way either.
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
That doesn't happen now when there are terrorist attacks outside of Europe. Or should the UK take the blame every time a terrorist decides to blow up a bunch of innocents and the government doesn't have an intelligence sharing agreement with said nation?
The very notion that we should do their work for them because they don't want to spend the money is ridiculous.
Withdrawing cooperation and therefore making British citizens less safe than they are currently is not the same as not ever having had cooperation agreements and networks in place. If you are OK with that, so be it.
An excellent article. Cummings always knew that the UK civil service was incapable of implementing Brexit and so it has proven. Need to stop pretending that they are dreadfully clever chaps and accept that they are massively overrated and generally incompetent. Might be time to abandon the concept of an impartial administrative body as they clearly are not impartial.
Not true! SeanT assured us that his contact high up in the leave campaign (Boris?) said our blokes are world beaters, geared up and ready to make a killing.
The problem with our Civil Service in what is happening with the EU negotiations is that while intellectually clever (but in a narrow sense), they are not great scrappers. They tend to be used to getting what they want and thinking they are wonderful. It is why it was a great mistake not to have Crawford Falconer running the negotiations, and not Olly Robbins. When you come from a small country like NZ, you have to know how to be prepared to fight hard for your interests and use whatever tools you have. Robbins gives the strong impression of seeing a problem set up by the EU and then going "mmmm, what do we have to give to get round this?" It is entirely the wrong mentality.
Not actually true, plenty of immigrants to Chelsea, Putney, Bromley and the Home Counties and plenty of Poles in Lincolnshire. Though what most Tories want is greater control of immigration, not an end to immigration
Absolutely old boy! Can't let the wrong sort in! Eh, what?
I would also remind you over a third of Labour voters and a majority of Labour seats voted Leave, in large part because of immigration concerns
The mistake that many people make though, I suspect, is that because many voters supported Leave it must be a key salient issue for them. The reality is likely to be different - for most voters it is a low-level highly technical issue which swings relatively few votes.There prospects next time is the extent to which they remain alienated.
Corbyn neutralised the Brexit issue in 2017 by matching May's commitment to leave the EU and single market and end free movement while also promising to retain the benefits of the Customs Union and single market.
He cannot have his cake and eat it for both Labour Remain and Leave voters for ever
I don't think that is the point at all. For most voters - whether Leavers or Remainers - Brexit is a highly technical issue which few claim to have indepth understanding of . Indeed the vast majority of voters appear to be thoroughly fed up with and bored by the topic and are keen to move on. Corbyn's success in 2017 lay ,I believe, in being to change the subject of debate in the campaign to matters people were able to relate to. He found a very receptive audience - which is why the 2017 election turned out not to be a Brexit election once the campaign got under way. Personally I will be very surprised if the next election - even if called this Autumn - proves to be any more dominated by Brexit than was the last one.It is an issue that connects much better with the commentariat than the electorate at large.
No that is the point.
Corbyn made virtually no net gains from 2015 Tory voters at all at the last general election.
His gains came from 2015 staunch Leaver UKIP voters and strong Remain LD, Green and SNP and young voters as well as a few diehard Remainer Tory voters.
He will find that coalition difficult to maintain in full post Brexit
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
That doesn't happen now when there are terrorist attacks outside of Europe. Or should the UK take the blame every time a terrorist decides to blow up a bunch of innocents and the government doesn't have an intelligence sharing agreement with said nation?
The very notion that we should do their work for them because they don't want to spend the money is ridiculous.
Withdrawing cooperation and therefore making British citizens less safe than they are currently is not the same as not ever having had cooperation agreements and networks in place. If you are OK with that, so be it.
Not only am I okay with it, I think the government should do it regardless of what happens with Galileo. Defence cooperation should be contingent on a free trade deal. If we are to be allies and defend their lands, then a free trade deal is not too much to ask.
Satisfaction with Mrs May’s performance has fallen among Conservatives from 77 per cent last month to 70 this month, while dissatisfaction is up among Tories from 19 to 27.
From net +58 to +43 among Conservative voters in a month is not pretty...
Satisfaction with Mrs May’s performance has fallen among Conservatives from 77 per cent last month to 70 this month, while dissatisfaction is up among Tories from 19 to 27.
From net +58 to +43 among Conservative voters in a month is not pretty...
As for the Germans, lets see them actually spend the money before proclaiming them as armed to the teeth.
Having experienced buyer's remorse with A400M Germany has just committed to a new joint C-130J/KC-130J squadron with France so there has been signs of life recently.
I’m sure there are loads of other examples where the “rules” were shall we say “interpreted” because it suited at the time? Of course should it not “suit”, those rules are immutable laws of physics without which the world will implode.
Physics has no immutable laws. Physics (and science in general) is a best-fit model that allows reliable predictions of real-world behaviour with refinements applied by comparing the outcome to the prediction.
Science has no idea how reality actually functions which seems a bit similar to Brexiteers view of the EU
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
That doesn't happen now when there are terrorist attacks outside of Europe. Or should the UK take the blame every time a terrorist decides to blow up a bunch of innocents and the government doesn't have an intelligence sharing agreement with said nation?
The very notion that we should do their work for them because they don't want to spend the money is ridiculous.
Withdrawing cooperation and therefore making British citizens less safe than they are currently is not the same as not ever having had cooperation agreements and networks in place. If you are OK with that, so be it.
Not only am I okay with it, I think the government should do it regardless of what happens with Galileo. Defence cooperation should be contingent on a free trade deal. If we are to be allies and defend their lands, then a free trade deal is not too much to ask.
Apart from the current balance of the House of Commons. And the House of Lords. And the judiciary. And the civil service. And the BBC. And Londoners. And the university towns. Young people in general, actually.
Northern Ireland can be dispensed with too, given the problems it causes. Scotland as well, if necessary. The car industry can be sacrificed if its needs get in the way.
So Leavers are looking for a Brexit for aged rural England and Wales. Always provided they don't get in the way either.
At least they will have their blue passports .....
I’m sure there are loads of other examples where the “rules” were shall we say “interpreted” because it suited at the time? Of course should it not “suit”, those rules are immutable laws of physics without which the world will implode.
Physics has no immutable laws. Physics (and science in general) is a best-fit model that allows reliable predictions of real-world behaviour with refinements applied by comparing the outcome to the prediction.
Science has no idea how reality actually functions which seems a bit similar to Brexiteers view of the EU
That’s easy. The EU are in a parallel universe. It’s an alternate reality. I guess it’s all relative (!)
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Who will Germany be defending itself against?
It's adversary is Russia but Germany would rather the USA confronts Russia so that Germany can continue to trade happily with Russia.
The five neutral countries in Europe spend an average of nearer 1% than 2% on defence. 2% is a figure plucked out of the air by politicians who can't add up.
That is, neutral countries which don't rely on 'collective security' are happy to spend rather less than NATO. So much for 'sharing the cost' reducing the cost.
Not actually true, plenty of immigrants to Chelsea, Putney, Bromley and the Home Counties and plenty of Poles in Lincolnshire. Though what most Tories want is greater control of immigration, not an end to immigration
Absolutely old boy! Can't let the wrong sort in! Eh, what?
I would also remind you over a third of Labour voters and a majority of Labour seats voted Leave, in large part because of immigration concerns
The mistake that many people make though, I suspect, is that because many voters supported Leave it must be a key salient issue for them. The reality is likely to be different - for most voters it is a low-level highly technical issue which swings relatively few votes.There prospects next time is the extent to which they remain alienated.
Corbyn neutralised the Brexit issue in 2017 by matching May's commitment to leave the EU and single market and end free movement while also promising to retain the benefits of the Customs Union and single market.
He cannot have his cake and eat it for both Labour Remain and Leave voters for ever
I don't think that is the point at all. For most voters - whether Leavers or Remainers - Brexit is a highly technical issue which few claim to have indepth understanding of . Indeed the vast majority of voters appear to be thoroughly fed up with and bored by the topic and are keen to move on. Corbyn's success in 2017 lay ,I believe, in being to change the subject of debate in the campaign to matters people were able to relate to. He found a very receptive audience - which is why the 2017 election turned out not to be a Brexit election once the campaign got under way. Personally I will be very surprised if the next election - even if called this Autumn - proves to be any more dominated by Brexit than was the last one.It is an issue that connects much better with the commentariat than the electorate at large.
No that is the point.
Corbyn made virtually no net gains from 2015 Tory voters at all at the last general election.
His gains came from 2015 staunch Leaver UKIP voters and strong Remain LD, Green and SNP and young voters as well as a few diehard Remainer Tory voters.
He will find that coalition difficult to maintain in full post Brexit
I disagree. The key point will be the extent to which Corbyn can win back traditional white working class voters who switched from Labour to the Tories in 2017. I am not persuaded that Brexit had much to do with that loss of support - the perceptions of Corbyn himself on a range of issues was much more important.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Who will Germany be defending itself against?
It's adversary is Russia but Germany would rather the USA confronts Russia so that Germany can continue to trade happily with Russia.
The five neutral countries in Europe spend an average of nearer 1% than 2% on defence. 2% is a figure plucked out of the air by politicians who can't add up.
That is, neutral countries which don't rely on 'collective security' are happy to spend rather less than NATO. So much for 'sharing the cost' reducing the cost.
Except they probably do rely on NATO in reality.
I recall reading an ex Swedish general saying the reality of Sweden’s defence was to be able to hold the Russians long enough to make the phone call to the Americans and shout “help” down the line.
The screed by Cummings is extraordinary. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy - his Brexit is crumbling away before his eyes, to the extent that we might even be worse off than under EU membership. And this is all down to the amateur hour haplessly trying to implement it. Unfortunately, whether we blame the politicians - or the intractability of the project itself - this was always going to be the danger. The Leavers should have been more honest and prepared us for the hard graft.
Who exactly did he think was going to implement it?
He was going to get Boris in charge and Gove's job was going to be specifically civil service reform.
Not actually true, plenty of immigrants to Chelsea, Putney, Bromley and the Home Counties and plenty of Poles in Lincolnshire. Though what most Tories want is greater control of immigration, not an end to immigration
Absolutely old boy! Can't let the wrong sort in! Eh, what?
I would also remind you over a third of Labour voters and a majority of Labour seats voted Leave, in large part because of immigration concerns
The mistake that many people make though, I suspect, is that because many voters supported Leave it must be a key salient issue for them. The reality is likely to be different - for most voters it is a low-level highly technical issue which swings relatively few votes.There prospects next time is the extent to which they remain alienated.
Corbyn neutralised the Brexit issue in 2017 by matching May's commitment to leave the EU and single market and end free movement while also promising to retain the benefits of the Customs Union and single market.
He cannot have his cake and eat it for both Labour Remain and Leave voters for ever
I don't think that is the point at all. For most voters - whether Leavers or Remainers - Brexit is a highly technical issue which few claim to have indepth understanding of . Indeed the vast majority of voters appear to be thoroughly fed up with and bored by the topic and much better with the commentariat than the electorate at large.
No that is the point.
Corbyn made virtually no net gains from 2015 Tory voters at all at the last general election.
His gains came from 2015 staunch Leaver UKIP voters and strong Remain LD, Green and SNP and young voters as well as a few diehard Remainer Tory voters.
He will find that coalition difficult to maintain in full post Brexit
I disagree. The key point will be the extent to which Corbyn can win back traditional white working class voters who switched from Labour to the Tories in 2017. I am not persuaded that Brexit had much to do with that loss of support - the perceptions of Corbyn himself on a range of issues was much more important.
I doubt he will ever win those white working class voters back, they clearly have a personal dislike of his leadership while being Brexit enthusiasts.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Who will Germany be defending itself against?
It's adversary is Russia but Germany would rather the USA confronts Russia so that Germany can continue to trade happily with Russia.
The five neutral countries in Europe spend an average of nearer 1% than 2% on defence. 2% is a figure plucked out of the air by politicians who can't add up.
That is, neutral countries which don't rely on 'collective security' are happy to spend rather less than NATO. So much for 'sharing the cost' reducing the cost.
Except they probably do rely on NATO in reality.
I recall reading an ex Swedish general saying the reality of Sweden’s defence was to be able to hold the Russians long enough to make the phone call to the Americans and shout “help” down the line.
Armed well though they are I believe, there’s only 10m of them and it’s not far to Russia.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
Funny things EU rules. Like when Germany and France broke the 3% deficit rule, or Greece cooked the books to get in the Euro, or indeed when in fact Belgium and Italy would never have qualified for it too because of their debt to GDP ratio.
I’m sure there are loads of other examples where the “rules” were shall we say “interpreted” because it suited at the time? Of course should it not “suit”, those rules are immutable laws of physics without which the world will implode.
Target2 is a de facto bailout of southern Europe in violation of both EU treaties and the German constitution. QE is in violation of EU treaties. The list is endless.
An excellent article. Cummings always knew that the UK civil service was incapable of implementing Brexit and so it has proven. Need to stop pretending that they are dreadfully clever chaps and accept that they are massively overrated and generally incompetent. Might be time to abandon the concept of an impartial administrative body as they clearly are not impartial.
Not true! SeanT assured us that his contact high up in the leave campaign (Boris?) said our blokes are world beaters, geared up and ready to make a killing.
Cummings is warning that a new political party will arise to deal with the betrayal.
"the creation of new forces to reflect public contempt for both the main parties"
His points about how the public, in say a focus group, will view the final outcome are worth taking very seriously: You've paid billions for f-all and unskilled migration is still happening.
When you fit these views with some of the stuff Goodwin talks about changing voter attitudes in the west, then it looks like major change may be on the way.
"Oh we make the standards and we make the rules And if you don't abide by them you must be a fool We have the power to control the whole land You never must question our motives or plans - cause well outlaw your voices, do anything we want we've nothing to fear from the nation Well throw you out of your houses if you get too much If we have to well destroy your generation cause we've built up a frontage and we've gained respect there's no one to endanger our position"
The five neutral countries in Europe spend an average of nearer 1% than 2% on defence. 2% is a figure plucked out of the air by politicians who can't add up.
Also, spending money doesn't necessarily equate to defence capability as the MoD repeatedly demonstrates. 15% of the UK defence budget goes on Trident and the V boats so in terms of conventional forces we are nowhere near 2%.
The screed by Cummings is extraordinary. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy - his Brexit is crumbling away before his eyes, to the extent that we might even be worse off than under EU membership. And this is all down to the amateur hour haplessly trying to implement it. Unfortunately, whether we blame the politicians - or the intractability of the project itself - this was always going to be the danger. The Leavers should have been more honest and prepared us for the hard graft.
Who exactly did he think was going to implement it?
he thinks A50 should not have been started until serious third country prep had been done.
Word has it that they are breaking what was already broken. Will Trump claim this as the biggest ever concession in the field of international diplomacy?
Not actually true, plenty of immigrants to Chelsea, Putney, Bromley and the Home Counties and plenty of Poles in Lincolnshire. Though what most Tories want is greater control of immigration, not an end to immigration
Absolutely old boy! Can't let the wrong sort in! Eh, what?
I would also remind you over a third of Labour voters and a majority of Labour seats voted Leave, in large part because of immigration concerns
.
Corbyn neutralised the Brexit issue in 2017 by matching May's commitment to leave the EU and single market and end free movement while also promising to retain the benefits of the Customs Union and single market.
He cannot have his cake and eat it for both Labour Remain and Leave voters for ever
I don't think that is the point at all. For most voters - whether Leavers or Remainers - Brexit is a highly technical issue which few claim to have indepth understanding of . Indeed the vast majority of voters appear to be thoroughly fed up with and bored by the topic and much better with the commentariat than the electorate at large.
No that is the point.
Corbyn made virtually no net gains from 2015 Tory voters at all at the last general election.
His gains came from 2015 staunch Leaver UKIP voters and strong Remain LD, Green and SNP and young voters as well as a few diehard Remainer Tory voters.
He will find that coalition difficult to maintain in full post Brexit
I disagree. The key point will be the extent to which Corbyn can win back traditional white working class voters who switched from Labour to the Tories in 2017. I am not persuaded that Brexit had much to do with that loss of support - the perceptions of Corbyn himself on a range of issues was much more important.
I doubt he will ever win those white working class voters back, they clearly have a personal dislike of his leadership while being Brexit enthusiasts.
I don't believe that dislike of Corbyn's leadership was particularly Brexit related. Perceptions of his attitude to Defence and National Security - and indeed his personal suitability as a leader - carried far more weight. I partially base my view on conversations with people who voted Tory in 2017 having previously been committed Labour voters. Some had been Leave supporters - others had voted Remain. Ovwerwhelmingly it was about Corbyn - not Brexit.
The screed by Cummings is extraordinary. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy - his Brexit is crumbling away before his eyes, to the extent that we might even be worse off than under EU membership. And this is all down to the amateur hour haplessly trying to implement it. Unfortunately, whether we blame the politicians - or the intractability of the project itself - this was always going to be the danger. The Leavers should have been more honest and prepared us for the hard graft.
Who exactly did he think was going to implement it?
he thinks A50 should not have been started until serious third country prep had been done.
You see, this is the standard of lies and deception that we have to put up with from Remainers.
Product standards <> the Single Market. Two different things.
World trade is process agnostic - if China produces a widget, all we care about is whether it complies with (say) EU standards. We don't care if the Chinese destroyed the environment, exploited labour or even really whether the company that produced it was subject to state aid.
The SM is not a system of product regulation - anyone (eg the Chinese) can get their products to comply with EU product regulations. The SM is a complete system of regulation for the economies that are controlled within it.
Rogers is being dishonest to say that following someone else's product regulations is in any way equivalent to being bound by SM regulations. The SM heavily impacts sovereignty, product regulations are just administrative. And in many cases a single product can comply with multiple standards, even if they are different.
The screed by Cummings is extraordinary. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy - his Brexit is crumbling away before his eyes, to the extent that we might even be worse off than under EU membership. And this is all down to the amateur hour haplessly trying to implement it. Unfortunately, whether we blame the politicians - or the intractability of the project itself - this was always going to be the danger. The Leavers should have been more honest and prepared us for the hard graft.
Who exactly did he think was going to implement it?
he thinks A50 should not have been started until serious third country prep had been done.
He affects to forget that the people most aggressively clamouring for the immediate triggering of Article 50 were his fellow Leavers. Any suggestion of delay was treated as treachery.
An excellent article. Cummings always knew that the UK civil service was incapable of implementing Brexit and so it has proven. Need to stop pretending that they are dreadfully clever chaps and accept that they are massively overrated and generally incompetent. Might be time to abandon the concept of an impartial administrative body as they clearly are not impartial.
Not true! SeanT assured us that his contact high up in the leave campaign (Boris?) said our blokes are world beaters, geared up and ready to make a killing.
Cummings is warning that a new political party will arise to deal with the betrayal.
"the creation of new forces to reflect public contempt for both the main parties"
His points about how the public, in say a focus group, will view the final outcome are worth taking very seriously: You've paid billions for f-all and unskilled migration is still happening.
When you fit these views with some of the stuff Goodwin talks about changing voter attitudes in the west, then it looks like major change may be on the way.
Looks pretty obvious. The Leavers will form a 'True Brexit' party; the Tories will get wiped out. Exactly what Cameron called the referendum to avoid. Only the Tories could be so stupid as to go through all of this and end up in the same place.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Who will Germany be defending itself against?
It's adversary is Russia but Germany would rather the USA confronts Russia so that Germany can continue to trade happily with Russia.
The five neutral countries in Europe spend an average of nearer 1% than 2% on defence. 2% is a figure plucked out of the air by politicians who can't add up.
That is, neutral countries which don't rely on 'collective security' are happy to spend rather less than NATO. So much for 'sharing the cost' reducing the cost.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Who will Germany be defending itself against?
It's adversary is Russia but Germany would rather the USA confronts Russia so that Germany can continue to trade happily with Russia.
The five neutral countries in Europe spend an average of nearer 1% than 2% on defence. 2% is a figure plucked out of the air by politicians who can't add up.
That is, neutral countries which don't rely on 'collective security' are happy to spend rather less than NATO. So much for 'sharing the cost' reducing the cost.
The neutral countries seem to behave a bit like those parents who dont vaccinate their children, relying on the herd immunity of everyone else, and then making a virtue out of it.
You see, this is the standard of lies and deception that we have to put up with from Remainers.
Product standards <> the Single Market. Two different things.
World trade is process agnostic - if China produces a widget, all we care about is whether it complies with (say) EU standards. We don't care if the Chinese destroyed the environment, exploited labour or even really whether the company that produced it was subject to state aid.
The SM is not a system of product regulation - anyone (eg the Chinese) can get their products to comply with EU product regulations. The SM is a complete system of regulation for the economies that are controlled within it.
Rogers is being dishonest to say that following someone else's product regulations is in any way equivalent to being bound by SM regulations. The SM heavily impacts sovereignty, product regulations are just administrative. And in many cases a single product can comply with multiple standards, even if they are different.
The tweet quoted doesn’t even mention the single market.
However, I guess the point is, if we want a say on EU *product* regulation, we have to be inside the tent.
And if we want frictionless trade with the EU (aka the single market) we also need to align on *process* regulation.
By exiting the EU we win theoretical autonomy in process, by sacrificing both influence and frictionless trade.
An excellent article. Cummings always knew that the UK civil service was incapable of implementing Brexit and so it has proven. Need to stop pretending that they are dreadfully clever chaps and accept that they are massively overrated and generally incompetent. Might be time to abandon the concept of an impartial administrative body as they clearly are not impartial.
Not true! SeanT assured us that his contact high up in the leave campaign (Boris?) said our blokes are world beaters, geared up and ready to make a killing.
Cummings is warning that a new political party will arise to deal with the betrayal.
"the creation of new forces to reflect public contempt for both the main parties"
His points about how the public, in say a focus group, will view the final outcome are worth taking very seriously: You've paid billions for f-all and unskilled migration is still happening.
When you fit these views with some of the stuff Goodwin talks about changing voter attitudes in the west, then it looks like major change may be on the way.
Looks pretty obvious. The Leavers will form a 'True Brexit' party; the Tories will get wiped out. Exactly what Cameron called the referendum to avoid. Only the Tories could be so stupid as to go through all of this and end up in the same place.
Even in 2015 UKIP only got 12% and the Tories far from being 'wiped out' won an overall majority.
Cummings can found a BNP/UKIP light 'kick out all the immigrants and go straight to WTO terms' party if he wants. I doubt he will get very far
The screed by Cummings is extraordinary. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy - his Brexit is crumbling away before his eyes, to the extent that we might even be worse off than under EU membership. And this is all down to the amateur hour haplessly trying to implement it. Unfortunately, whether we blame the politicians - or the intractability of the project itself - this was always going to be the danger. The Leavers should have been more honest and prepared us for the hard graft.
Who exactly did he think was going to implement it?
he thinks A50 should not have been started until serious third country prep had been done.
He affects to forget that the people most aggressively clamouring for the immediate triggering of Article 50 were his fellow Leavers. Any suggestion of delay was treated as treachery.
I think if May had said words to the effect of "we're going to prep for no deal before triggering A50 - and then actually did do that - then I think there would have been less pressure."
You see, this is the standard of lies and deception that we have to put up with from Remainers.
Product standards <> the Single Market. Two different things.
World trade is process agnostic - if China produces a widget, all we care about is whether it complies with (say) EU standards. We don't care if the Chinese destroyed the environment, exploited labour or even really whether the company that produced it was subject to state aid.
The SM is not a system of product regulation - anyone (eg the Chinese) can get their products to comply with EU product regulations. The SM is a complete system of regulation for the economies that are controlled within it.
Rogers is being dishonest to say that following someone else's product regulations is in any way equivalent to being bound by SM regulations. The SM heavily impacts sovereignty, product regulations are just administrative. And in many cases a single product can comply with multiple standards, even if they are different.
The tweet quoted doesn’t even mention the single market.
However, I guess the point is, if we want a say on EU *product* regulation, we have to be inside the tent.
And if we want frictionless trade with the EU (aka the single market) we also need to align on *process* regulation.
By exiting the EU we win theoretical autonomy in process, by sacrificing both influence and frictionless trade.
The autonomy is obviously not theoretical; that is the whole point. It is not just the power to alter product regulations, it is the power to control our whole economy. And some friction at the border is a negligible price to pay.
It is also untrue to say that everyone follows the regulations of the three economies listed. Remember, the vast majority of goods are not exported.
An excellent article. Cummings always knew that the UK civil service was incapable of implementing Brexit and so it has proven. Need to stop pretending that they are dreadfully clever chaps and accept that they are massively overrated and generally incompetent. Might be time to abandon the concept of an impartial administrative body as they clearly are not impartial.
Not true! SeanT assured us that his contact high up in the leave campaign (Boris?) said our blokes are world beaters, geared up and ready to make a killing.
Cummings is warning that a new political party will arise to deal with the betrayal.
"the creation of new forces to reflect public contempt for both the main parties"
His points about how the public, in say a focus group, will view the final outcome are worth taking very seriously: You've paid billions for f-all and unskilled migration is still happening.
When you fit these views with some of the stuff Goodwin talks about changing voter attitudes in the west, then it looks like major change may be on the way.
Looks pretty obvious. The Leavers will form a 'True Brexit' party; the Tories will get wiped out. Exactly what Cameron called the referendum to avoid. Only the Tories could be so stupid as to go through all of this and end up in the same place.
Even in 2015 UKIP only got 12% and the Tories far from being 'wiped out' won an overall majority.
Cummings can found a BNP/UKIP light 'kick out all the immigrants and go straight to WTO terms' party if he wants. I doubt he will get very far
UKIP only got 12% because Cameron promised the referendum. And Cummings is not anti-immigration as you should know.
He just has to form a "Brexit Betrayed' movement. It will attract a lot of people - remember there is no other party of protest at the moment. And Tory members, who have made it absolutely clear that they want a real Brexit, will desert the party in droves after May has finished. You might be the only one left!
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
That doesn't happen now when there are terrorist attacks outside of Europe. Or should the UK take the blame every time a terrorist decides to blow up a bunch of innocents and the government doesn't have an intelligence sharing agreement with said nation?
The very notion that we should do their work for them because they don't want to spend the money is ridiculous.
Withdrawing cooperation and therefore making British citizens less safe than they are currently is not the same as not ever having had cooperation agreements and networks in place. If you are OK with that, so be it.
Not only am I okay with it, I think the government should do it regardless of what happens with Galileo. Defence cooperation should be contingent on a free trade deal. If we are to be allies and defend their lands, then a free trade deal is not too much to ask.
Max you're having a shocker here. Give up defence cooperation unless we can sell our....our....artisan honey to Germany. I mean listen to yourself. These are grown up subjects and you are treating them like they are cards for swapsies in the playground.
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
That doesn't happen now when there are terrorist attacks outside of Europe. Or should the UK take the blame every time a terrorist decides to blow up a bunch of innocents and the government doesn't have an intelligence sharing agreement with said nation?
The very notion that we should do their work for them because they don't want to spend the money is ridiculous.
Withdrawing cooperation and therefore making British citizens less safe than they are currently is not the same as not ever having had cooperation agreements and networks in place. If you are OK with that, so be it.
Not only am I okay with it, I think the government should do it regardless of what happens with Galileo. Defence cooperation should be contingent on a free trade deal. If we are to be allies and defend their lands, then a free trade deal is not too much to ask.
Max you're having a shocker here. Give up defence cooperation unless we can sell our....our....artisan honey to Germany. I mean listen to yourself. These are grown up subjects and you are treating them like they are cards for swapsies in the playground.
Welcome to the real world. It's called realpolitik
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
That doesn't happen now when there are terrorist attacks outside of Europe. Or should the UK take the blame every time a terrorist decides to blow up a bunch of innocents and the government doesn't have an intelligence sharing agreement with said nation?
The very notion that we should do their work for them because they don't want to spend the money is ridiculous.
Withdrawing cooperation and therefore making British citizens less safe than they are currently is not the same as not ever having had cooperation agreements and networks in place. If you are OK with that, so be it.
Not only am I okay with it, I think the government should do it regardless of what happens with Galileo. Defence cooperation should be contingent on a free trade deal. If we are to be allies and defend their lands, then a free trade deal is not too much to ask.
Max you're having a shocker here. Give up defence cooperation unless we can sell our....our....artisan honey to Germany. I mean listen to yourself. These are grown up subjects and you are treating them like they are cards for swapsies in the playground.
And their position is, "your goods will be subject to massive tariffs, but please defend our borders and help us stop terrorist attacks". My position is consistent with what they are saying.
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
That doesn't happen now when there are terrorist attacks outside of Europe. Or should the UK take the blame every time a terrorist decides to blow up a bunch of innocents and the government doesn't have an intelligence sharing agreement with said nation?
The very notion that we should do their work for them because they don't want to spend the money is ridiculous.
Withdrawing cooperation and therefore making British citizens less safe than they are currently is not the same as not ever having had cooperation agreements and networks in place. If you are OK with that, so be it.
Not only am I okay with it, I think the government should do it regardless of what happens with Galileo. Defence cooperation should be contingent on a free trade deal. If we are to be allies and defend their lands, then a free trade deal is not too much to ask.
Max you're having a shocker here. Give up defence cooperation unless we can sell our....our....artisan honey to Germany. I mean listen to yourself. These are grown up subjects and you are treating them like they are cards for swapsies in the playground.
Most of Europe will get substantive defence and security cooperation from the UK via NATO anyway no matter what happens with brexit.
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
That doesn't happen now when there are terrorist attacks outside of Europe. Or should the UK take the blame every time a terrorist decides to blow up a bunch of innocents and the government doesn't have an intelligence sharing agreement with said nation?
The very notion that we should do their work for them because they don't want to spend the money is ridiculous.
Withdrawing cooperation and therefore making British citizens less safe than they are currently is not the same as not ever having had cooperation agreements and networks in place. If you are OK with that, so be it.
Not only am I okay with it, I think the government should do it regardless of what happens with Galileo. Defence cooperation should be contingent on a free trade deal. If we are to be allies and defend their lands, then a free trade deal is not too much to ask.
Max you're having a shocker here. Give up defence cooperation unless we can sell our....our....artisan honey to Germany. I mean listen to yourself. These are grown up subjects and you are treating them like they are cards for swapsies in the playground.
And their position is, "your goods will be subject to massive tariffs, but please defend our borders and help us stop terrorist attacks". My position is consistent with what they are saying.
Not quite. They are wondering what on earth we want from our Brexit and in the meantime and in any case we as neighbouring nations have a common goal of preventing terrorist attacks. You are conflating them, not the EU.
An excellent article. Cummings always knew that the UK civil service was incapable of implementing Brexit and so it has proven. Need to stop pretending that they are dreadfully clever chaps and accept that they are massively overrated and generally incompetent. Might be time to abandon the concept of an impartial administrative body as they clearly are not impartial.
Not true! SeanT assured us that his contact high up in the leave campaign (Boris?) said our blokes are world beaters, geared up and ready to make a killing.
Cummings is warning that a new political party will arise to deal with the betrayal.
"the creation of new forces to reflect public contempt for both the main parties"
His points about how the public, in say a focus group, will view the final outcome are worth taking very seriously: You've paid billions for f-all and unskilled migration is still happening.
When you fit these views with some of the stuff Goodwin talks about changing voter attitudes in the west, then it looks like major change may be on the way.
Looks pretty obvious. The Leavers will form a 'True Brexit' party; the Tories will get wiped out. Exactly what Cameron called the referendum to avoid. Only the Tories could be so stupid as to go through all of this and end up in the same place.
Even in 2015 UKIP only got 12% and the Tories far from being 'wiped out' won an overall majority.
Cummings can found a BNP/UKIP light 'kick out all the immigrants and go straight to WTO terms' party if he wants. I doubt he will get very far
UKIP only got 12% because Cameron promised the referendum. And Cummings is not anti-immigration as you should know.
He just has to form a "Brexit Betrayed' movement. It will attract a lot of people - remember there is no other party of protest at the moment. And Tory members, who have made it absolutely clear that they want a real Brexit, will desert the party in droves after May has finished. You might be the only one left!
His criticisms seem largely based on work permits not being tough enough on immigration and he wants no regulatory alignment at all with the EU and no exit bill thus ensuring WTO terms and no FTA.
Your last point is of course rubbish, UKIP members have been defecting post Brexit to the Tories, if a few go to Cummings trying to revive a dead parrot party so be it and of course plenty of Labour voters now voting for Corbyn voted for UKIP in 2015 too
The screed by Cummings is extraordinary. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy - his Brexit is crumbling away before his eyes, to the extent that we might even be worse off than under EU membership. And this is all down to the amateur hour haplessly trying to implement it. Unfortunately, whether we blame the politicians - or the intractability of the project itself - this was always going to be the danger. The Leavers should have been more honest and prepared us for the hard graft.
Who exactly did he think was going to implement it?
he thinks A50 should not have been started until serious third country prep had been done.
He affects to forget that the people most aggressively clamouring for the immediate triggering of Article 50 were his fellow Leavers. Any suggestion of delay was treated as treachery.
I think if May had said words to the effect of "we're going to prep for no deal before triggering A50 - and then actually did do that - then I think there would have been less pressure."
No, that would have been calamitous for Theresa. Raising the spectre of a cliff-drop Brexit would have made a mockery of virtually everything Leave campaigned on. They would never has stood for it and would have ousted Theresa in a shot, accusing her of being insufficiently sunny about Brexit's prospects. Indeed, the word 'saboteur' might even have crossed their lips.
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
That doesn't happen now when there are terrorist attacks outside of Europe. Or should the UK take the blame every time a terrorist decides to blow up a bunch of innocents and the government doesn't have an intelligence sharing agreement with said nation?
The very notion that we should do their work for them because they don't want to spend the money is ridiculous.
Withdrawing cooperation and therefore making British citizens less safe than they are currently is not the same as not ever having had cooperation agreements and networks in place. If you are OK with that, so be it.
Not only am I okay with it, I think the government should do it regardless of what happens with Galileo. Defence cooperation should be contingent on a free trade deal. If we are to be allies and defend their lands, then a free trade deal is not too much to ask.
Max you're having a shocker here. Give up defence cooperation unless we can sell our....our....artisan honey to Germany. I mean listen to yourself. These are grown up subjects and you are treating them like they are cards for swapsies in the playground.
And their position is, "your goods will be subject to massive tariffs, but please defend our borders and help us stop terrorist attacks". My position is consistent with what they are saying.
Not quite. They are wondering what on earth we want from our Brexit and in the meantime and in any case we as neighbouring nations have a common goal of preventing terrorist attacks. You are conflating them, not the EU.
We as neighbouring nations have a common goal of having a free trade agreement but they won't even talk about that. So screw their common goals, we need to look after ourselves.
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
That doesn't happen now when there are terrorist attacks outside of Europe. Or should the UK take the blame every time a terrorist decides to blow up a bunch of innocents and the government doesn't have an intelligence sharing agreement with said nation?
The very notion that we should do their work for them because they don't want to spend the money is ridiculous.
Withdrawing cooperation and therefore making British citizens less safe than they are currently is not the same as not ever having had cooperation agreements and networks in place. If you are OK with that, so be it.
Not only am I okay with it, I think the government should do it regardless of what happens with Galileo. Defence cooperation should be contingent on a free trade deal. If we are to be allies and defend their lands, then a free trade deal is not too much to ask.
Max you're having a shocker here. Give up defence cooperation unless we can sell our....our....artisan honey to Germany. I mean listen to yourself. These are grown up subjects and you are treating them like they are cards for swapsies in the playground.
Most of Europe will get substantive defence and security cooperation from the UK via NATO anyway no matter what happens with brexit.
Zactly. There will be extensive bilateral arrangements between EU states and the UK regardless of Brexit.
The five neutral countries in Europe spend an average of nearer 1% than 2% on defence. 2% is a figure plucked out of the air by politicians who can't add up.
Also, spending money doesn't necessarily equate to defence capability as the MoD repeatedly demonstrates. 15% of the UK defence budget goes on Trident and the V boats so in terms of conventional forces we are nowhere near 2%.
The fireplace salesman's latest helium infused squeak suggests that our conventional capability is so reduced, we might be FORCED to use the instant sunshine.
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
That doesn't happen now when there are terrorist attacks outside of Europe. Or should the UK take the blame every time a terrorist decides to blow up a bunch of innocents and the government doesn't have an intelligence sharing agreement with said nation?
The very notion that we should do their work for them because they don't want to spend the money is ridiculous.
Withdrawing cooperation and therefore making British citizens less safe than they are currently is not the same as not ever having had cooperation agreements and networks in place. If you are OK with that, so be it.
Not only am I okay with it, I think the government should do it regardless of what happens with Galileo. Defence cooperation should be contingent on a free trade deal. If we are to be allies and defend their lands, then a free trade deal is not too much to ask.
Max you're having a shocker here. Give up defence cooperation unless we can sell our....our....artisan honey to Germany. I mean listen to yourself. These are grown up subjects and you are treating them like they are cards for swapsies in the playground.
And their position is, "your goods will be subject to massive tariffs, but please defend our borders and help us stop terrorist attacks". My position is consistent with what they are saying.
Not quite. They are wondering what on earth we want from our Brexit and in the meantime and in any case we as neighbouring nations have a common goal of preventing terrorist attacks. You are conflating them, not the EU.
We as neighbouring nations have a common goal of having a free trade agreement but they won't even talk about that. So screw their common goals, we need to look after ourselves.
This is the amusing Leaver dynamic. You go from wanting to leave the EU to wishing damnation and hellfire upon them. It is an understandable emotional response. From a toddler.
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
That doesn't happen now when there are terrorist attacks outside of Europe. Or should the UK take the blame every time a terrorist decides to blow up a bunch of innocents and the government doesn't have an intelligence sharing agreement with said nation?
The very notion that we should do their work for them because they don't want to spend the money is ridiculous.
Withdrawing cooperation and therefore making British citizens less safe than they are currently is not the same as not ever having had cooperation agreements and networks in place. If you are OK with that, so be it.
Not only am I okay with it, I think the government should do it regardless of what happens with Galileo. Defence cooperation should be contingent on a free trade deal. If we are to be allies and defend their lands, then a free trade deal is not too much to ask.
Max you're having a shocker here. Give up defence cooperation unless we can sell our....our....artisan honey to Germany. I mean listen to yourself. These are grown up subjects and you are treating them like they are cards for swapsies in the playground.
And their position is, "your goods will be subject to massive tariffs, but please defend our borders and help us stop terrorist attacks". My position is consistent with what they are saying.
Everyone’s goods will be subject to the same tariffs in the absence of an agreement.
I take it you don't actually have an argument against what I wrote.
I fear you might find your defences of Russia becoming ever more ludicrous. I say 'fear', as Russia's actions are not good for the world. Sadly, people such as yourself have their heads in the sand, and are willing to find ludicrous excuses for Russia's actions.
Being a drippy house husband has clearly addled your brain. Go back to work man before it's too late.
The five neutral countries in Europe spend an average of nearer 1% than 2% on defence. 2% is a figure plucked out of the air by politicians who can't add up.
Also, spending money doesn't necessarily equate to defence capability as the MoD repeatedly demonstrates. 15% of the UK defence budget goes on Trident and the V boats so in terms of conventional forces we are nowhere near 2%.
The fireplace salesman's latest helium infused squeak suggests that our conventional capability is so reduced, we might be FORCED to use the instant sunshine.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Who will Germany be defending itself against?
It's adversary is Russia but Germany would rather the USA confronts Russia so that Germany can continue to trade happily with Russia.
The five neutral countries in Europe spend an average of nearer 1% than 2% on defence. 2% is a figure plucked out of the air by politicians who can't add up.
That is, neutral countries which don't rely on 'collective security' are happy to spend rather less than NATO. So much for 'sharing the cost' reducing the cost.
The neutral countries seem to behave a bit like those parents who dont vaccinate their children, relying on the herd immunity of everyone else, and then making a virtue out of it.
They have self defence-only policies. AFAIK none of them would send forces overseas except as part of a UN peacekeeping force (in the 1960s and 1970s these often used to include Irish and Swedish troops).
Austria and Finland became non-aligned under international treaties in order to, er, reduce the risk of conflict (cf the setting up of the EU). It was done to move towards a more stable world order, not enable them to rely on someone else's weapons.
As another contributor implied, if one cuts out the MoD stupidity and waste, UK spending on defence essentials probably is only ~1.5%. That approximates some of the higher-spending neutral countries. NATO lost its raison d'etre in ~1991 when the Warsaw Pact decided to dissolve itself.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Who will Germany be defending itself against?
It's adversary is Russia but Germany would rather the USA confronts Russia so that Germany can continue to trade happily with Russia.
The five neutral countries in Europe spend an average of nearer 1% than 2% on defence. 2% is a figure plucked out of the air by politicians who can't add up.
That is, neutral countries which don't rely on 'collective security' are happy to spend rather less than NATO. So much for 'sharing the cost' reducing the cost.
The neutral countries seem to behave a bit like those parents who dont vaccinate their children, relying on the herd immunity of everyone else, and then making a virtue out of it.
They have self defence-only policies. AFAIK none of them would send forces overseas except as part of a UN peacekeeping force (in the 1960s and 1970s these often used to include Irish and Swedish troops).
Austria and Finland became non-aligned under international treaties in order to, er, reduce the risk of conflict (cf the setting up of the EU). It was done to move towards a more stable world order, not enable them to rely on someone else's weapons.
As another contributor implied, if one cuts out the MoD stupidity and waste, UK spending on defence essentials probably is only ~1.5%. That approximates some of the higher-spending neutral countries. NATO lost its raison d'etre in ~1991 when the Warsaw Pact decided to dissolve itself.
Yet for some reason managed to create a renewed reason for itself by not welcoming in the FSU in its nascent state.
I take it you don't actually have an argument against what I wrote.
I fear you might find your defences of Russia becoming ever more ludicrous. I say 'fear', as Russia's actions are not good for the world. Sadly, people such as yourself have their heads in the sand, and are willing to find ludicrous excuses for Russia's actions.
Being a drippy house husband has clearly addled your brain. Go back to work man before it's too late.
Please tell us about your life, background and work, so we can decide quite why you feel the need to write such a post.
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
That doesn't happen now when there are terrorist attacks outside of Europe. Or should the UK take the blame every time a terrorist decides to blow up a bunch of innocents and the government doesn't have an intelligence sharing agreement with said nation?
The very notion that we should do their work for them because they don't want to spend the money is ridiculous.
Withdrawing cooperation and therefore making British citizens less safe than they are currently is not the same as not ever having had cooperation agreements and networks in place. If you are OK with that, so be it.
Not only am I okay with it, I think the government should do it regardless of what happens with Galileo. Defence cooperation should be contingent on a free trade deal. If we are to be allies and defend their lands, then a free trade deal is not too much to ask.
Max you're having a shocker here. Give up defence cooperation unless we can sell our....our....artisan honey to Germany. I mean listen to yourself. These are grown up subjects and you are treating them like they are cards for swapsies in the playground.
And their position is, "your goods will be subject to massive tariffs, but please defend our borders and help us stop terrorist attacks". My position is consistent with what they are saying.
Not quite. They are wondering what on earth we want from our Brexit and in the meantime and in any case we as neighbouring nations have a common goal of preventing terrorist attacks. You are conflating them, not the EU.
We as neighbouring nations have a common goal of having a free trade agreement but they won't even talk about that. So screw their common goals, we need to look after ourselves.
This is the amusing Leaver dynamic. You go from wanting to leave the EU to wishing damnation and hellfire upon them. It is an understandable emotional response. From a toddler.
Who wished damnation and hellfire upon them? Not me.
We ought to be friendly co-operative neighbours with them, if they want to be. If they don't want to be then so be it but to quote their own phrase "no cherrypicking". They don't get to freeride off our security coattails while denying us a win/win deal.
Who wished damnation and hellfire upon them? Not me.
We ought to be friendly co-operative neighbours with them, if they want to be. If they don't want to be then so be it but to quote their own phrase "no cherrypicking". They don't get to freeride off our security coattails while denying us a win/win deal.
Has any Leaver articulated a deal that is genuinely win/win? Even just a few bullet points showing what's in it for each side?
An excellent article. Cummings always knew that the UK civil service was incapable of implementing Brexit and so it has proven. Need to stop pretending that they are dreadfully clever chaps and accept that they are massively overrated and generally incompetent. Might be time to abandon the concept of an impartial administrative body as they clearly are not impartial.
Not true! SeanT assured us that his contact high up in the leave campaign (Boris?) said our blokes are world beaters, geared up and ready to make a killing.
Cummings is warning that a new political party will arise to deal with the betrayal.
"the creation of new forces to reflect public contempt for both the main parties"
His points about how the public, in say a focus group, will view the final outcome are worth taking very seriously: You've paid billions for f-all and unskilled migration is still happening.
When you fit these views with some of the stuff Goodwin talks about changing voter attitudes in the west, then it looks like major change may be on the way.
Looks pretty obvious. The Leavers will form a 'True Brexit' party; the Tories will get wiped out. Exactly what Cameron called the referendum to avoid. Only the Tories could be so stupid as to go through all of this and end up in the same place.
Even in 2015 UKIP only got 12% and the Tories far from being 'wiped out' won an overall majority.
Cummings can found a BNP/UKIP light 'kick out all the immigrants and go straight to WTO terms' party if he wants. I doubt he will get very far
UKIP only got 12% because Cameron promised the referendum. And Cummings is not anti-immigration as you should know.
He just has to form a "Brexit Betrayed' movement. It will attract a lot of people - remember there is no other party of protest at the moment. And Tory members, who have made it absolutely clear that they want a real Brexit, will desert the party in droves after May has finished. You might be the only one left!
"Wacist" is not going to cut it as an approach to shut down debate on sensible immigration controls.
May has 9 months to ensure Brexit happens - otherwise she's out.
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
That doesn't happen now when there are terrorist attacks outside of Europe. Or should the UK take the blame every time a terrorist decides to blow up a bunch of innocents and the government doesn't have an intelligence sharing agreement with said nation?
The very notion that we should do their work for them because they don't want to spend the money is ridiculous.
Withdrawing cooperation and therefore making British citizens less safe than they are currently is not the same as not ever having had cooperation agreements and networks in place. If you are OK with that, so be it.
Not only am I okay much to ask.
Max you're having a shocker here. Give up defence cooperation unless we can sell our....our....artisan honey to Germany. I mean listen to yourself. These are grown up subjects and you are treating them like they are cards for swapsies in the playground.
And their position is, "your goods will be subject to massive tariffs, but please defend our borders and help us stop terrorist attacks". My position is consistent with what they are saying.
Not quite. They are wondering what on earth we want from our Brexit and in the meantime and in any case we as neighbouring nations have a common goal of preventing terrorist attacks. You are conflating them, not the EU.
We as neighbouring nations have a common goal of having a free trade agreement but they won't even talk about that. So screw their common goals, we need to look after ourselves.
This is the amusing Leaver dynamic. You go from wanting to leave the EU to wishing damnation and hellfire upon them. It is an understandable emotional response. From a toddler.
Who wished damnation and hellfire upon them? Not me.
We ought to be friendly co-operative neighbours with them, if they want to be. If they don't want to be then so be it but to quote their own phrase "no cherrypicking". They don't get to freeride off our security coattails while denying us a win/win deal.
And if that makes life more dangerous for British citizens, so be it. Or something.
You see, this is the standard of lies and deception that we have to put up with from Remainers.
Product standards <> the Single Market. Two different things.
World trade is process agnostic - if China produces a widget, all we care about is whether it complies with (say) EU standards. We don't care if the Chinese destroyed the environment, exploited labour or even really whether the company that produced it was subject to state aid.
The SM is not a system of product regulation - anyone (eg the Chinese) can get their products to comply with EU product regulations. The SM is a complete system of regulation for the economies that are controlled within it.
Rogers is being dishonest to say that following someone else's product regulations is in any way equivalent to being bound by SM regulations. The SM heavily impacts sovereignty, product regulations are just administrative. And in many cases a single product can comply with multiple standards, even if they are different.
The tweet quoted doesn’t even mention the single market.
However, I guess the point is, if we want a say on EU *product* regulation, we have to be inside the tent.
And if we want frictionless trade with the EU (aka the single market) we also need to align on *process* regulation.
By exiting the EU we win theoretical autonomy in process, by sacrificing both influence and frictionless trade.
The autonomy is obviously not theoretical; that is the whole point. It is not just the power to alter product regulations, it is the power to control our whole economy. And some friction at the border is a negligible price to pay.
It is also untrue to say that everyone follows the regulations of the three economies listed. Remember, the vast majority of goods are not exported.
But we are talking about exports. The idea we can base our economy on the North Korea model is not worth debating.
The “process autonomy” you seek is theoretical because:
A- we don’t have it yet B- we may never have it, since our aim is actually to sign back into much of the single market to preserve access C- consists of rules that we are unlikely to break on our own account, anyway, eg. Labour and environmental protection - with the notable exception of FOM
Basically it comes down to a choice. Do we want prosperity and influence, or should we sacrifice this for greater control of migration from Europe.
This is why the argument is sterile. There’s no “right” answer to that question as the two terms are not comparable.
I take it you don't actually have an argument against what I wrote.
I fear you might find your defences of Russia becoming ever more ludicrous. I say 'fear', as Russia's actions are not good for the world. Sadly, people such as yourself have their heads in the sand, and are willing to find ludicrous excuses for Russia's actions.
Being a drippy house husband has clearly addled your brain. Go back to work man before it's too late.
Lack of certainty on citizens' rights On citizen's rights, the Report states that while the Home Office faces a number of significant challenges in delivering an orderly transition for EU citizens living in the UK, the Government has at least set out the general, overarching structure of the Settled Status application process. It is important that the process is quick, simple and available to people using a variety of technological platforms.
There is little sign, however, that the same level of organisational planning has started in many EU Member States. Member States must set out what UK citizens should do to regularise their residential status, and communicate this information clearly.
I take it you don't actually have an argument against what I wrote.
I fear you might find your defences of Russia becoming ever more ludicrous. I say 'fear', as Russia's actions are not good for the world. Sadly, people such as yourself have their heads in the sand, and are willing to find ludicrous excuses for Russia's actions.
Being a drippy house husband has clearly addled your brain. Go back to work man before it's too late.
I take it you don't actually have an argument against what I wrote.
I fear you might find your defences of Russia becoming ever more ludicrous. I say 'fear', as Russia's actions are not good for the world. Sadly, people such as yourself have their heads in the sand, and are willing to find ludicrous excuses for Russia's actions.
Being a drippy house husband has clearly addled your brain. Go back to work man before it's too late.
Have I suddenly time-travelled to the 1950s?
We’re all travelling back to the 1950s. It’s the “will of the people”.
DUP East Londonderry MP Gregory Campbell accused Mr Corbyn of snubbing a request to meet with IRA victims. Labour said it hadn't received enough notice, but that the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary of State Tony Lloyd has taken up the invite on behalf of his party leader.
An excellent article. Cummings always knew that the UK civil service was incapable of implementing Brexit and so it has proven. Need to stop pretending that they are dreadfully clever chaps and accept that they are massively overrated and generally incompetent. Might be time to abandon the concept of an impartial administrative body as they clearly are not impartial.
Not true! SeanT assured us that his contact high up in the leave campaign (Boris?) said our blokes are world beaters, geared up and ready to make a killing.
Cummings is warning that a new political party will arise to deal with the betrayal.
"the creation of new forces to reflect public contempt for both the main parties"
His points about how the public, in say a focus group, will view the final outcome are worth taking very seriously: You've paid billions for f-all and unskilled migration is still happening.
When you fit these views with some of the stuff Goodwin talks about changing voter attitudes in the west, then it looks like major change may be on the way.
Looks pretty obvious. The Leavers will form a 'True Brexit' party; the Tories will get wiped out. Exactly what Cameron called the referendum to avoid. Only the Tories could be so stupid as to go through all of this and end up in the same place.
Even in 2015 UKIP only got 12% and the Tories far from being 'wiped out' won an overall majority.
Cummings can found a BNP/UKIP light 'kick out all the immigrants and go straight to WTO terms' party if he wants. I doubt he will get very far
UKIP only got 12% because Cameron promised the referendum. And Cummings is not anti-immigration as you should know.
He just has to form a "Brexit Betrayed' movement. It will attract a lot of people - remember there is no other party of protest at the moment. And Tory members, who have made it absolutely clear that they want a real Brexit, will desert the party in droves after May has finished. You might be the only one left!
"Wacist" is not going to cut it as an approach to shut down debate on sensible immigration controls.
May has 9 months to ensure Brexit happens - otherwise she's out.
An excellent article. Cummings always knew that the UK civil service was incapable of implementing Brexit and so it has proven. Need to stop pretending that they are dreadfully clever chaps and accept that they are massively overrated and generally incompetent. Might be time to abandon the concept of an impartial administrative body as they clearly are not impartial.
Not true! SeanT assured us that his contact high up in the leave campaign (Boris?) said our blokes are world beaters, geared up and ready to make a killing.
Cummings is warning that a new political party will arise to deal with the betrayal.
"the creation of new forces to reflect public contempt for both the main parties"
His points about how the public, in say a focus group, will view the final outcome are worth taking very seriously: You've paid billions for f-all and unskilled migration is still happening.
When you fit these views with some of the stuff Goodwin talks about changing voter attitudes in the west, then it looks like major change may be on the way.
Looks pretty obvious. The Leavers will form a 'True Brexit' party; the Tories will get wiped out. Exactly what Cameron called the referendum to avoid. Only the Tories could be so stupid as to go through all of this and end up in the same place.
Even in 2015 UKIP only got 12% and the Tories far from being 'wiped out' won an overall majority.
Cummings can found a BNP/UKIP light 'kick out all the immigrants and go straight to WTO terms' party if he wants. I doubt he will get very far
UKIP only got 12% because Cameron promised the referendum. And Cummings is not anti-immigration as you should know.
He just has to form a "Brexit Betrayed' movement. It will attract a lot of people - remember there is no other party of protest at the moment. And Tory members, who have made it absolutely clear that they want a real Brexit, will desert the party in droves after May has finished. You might be the only one left!
"Wacist" is not going to cut it as an approach to shut down debate on sensible immigration controls.
May has 9 months to ensure Brexit happens - otherwise she's out.
The screed by Cummings is extraordinary. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy - his Brexit is crumbling away before his eyes, to the extent that we might even be worse off than under EU membership. And this is all down to the amateur hour haplessly trying to implement it. Unfortunately, whether we blame the politicians - or the intractability of the project itself - this was always going to be the danger. The Leavers should have been more honest and prepared us for the hard graft.
Who exactly did he think was going to implement it?
he thinks A50 should not have been started until serious third country prep had been done.
He affects to forget that the people most aggressively clamouring for the immediate triggering of Article 50 were his fellow Leavers. Any suggestion of delay was treated as treachery.
Yes that rather stood out for me. I take the view that TM delayed as long as she could given the risk of being toppled by Brexiteers.
Still the piece is very interesting, and a useful reminder that Leave is not a monolithic block, that it contains lots of different views.
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
That doesn't happen now when there are terrorist attacks outside of Europe. Or should the UK take the blame every time a terrorist decides to blow up a bunch of innocents and the government doesn't have an intelligence sharing agreement with said nation?
The very notion that we should do their work for them because they don't want to spend the money is ridiculous.
Withdrawing cooperation and therefore making British citizens less safe than they are currently is not the same as not ever having had cooperation agreements and networks in place. If you are OK with that, so be it.
Not only am I okay with it, I think the government should do it regardless of what happens with Galileo. Defence cooperation should be contingent on a free trade deal. If we are to be allies and defend their lands, then a free trade deal is not too much to ask.
Max you're having a shocker here. Give up defence cooperation unless we can sell our....our....artisan honey to Germany. I mean listen to yourself. These are grown up subjects and you are treating them like they are cards for swapsies in the playground.
It’s all card for swapsies in a playground. You are being fundamentally naive if you think it is anything else.
You see, this is the standard of lies and deception that we have to put up with from Remainers.
Product standards <> the Single Market. Two different things.
World trade is process agnostic - if China produces a widget, all we care about is whether it complies with (say) EU standards. We don't care if the Chinese destroyed the environment, exploited labour or even really whether the company that produced it was subject to state aid.
The SM is not a system of product regulation - anyone (eg the Chinese) can get their products to comply with EU product regulations. The SM is a complete system of regulation for the economies that are controlled within it.
Rogers is being dishonest to say that following someone else's product regulations is in any way equivalent to being bound by SM regulations. The SM heavily impacts sovereignty, product regulations are just administrative. And in many cases a single product can comply with multiple standards, even if they are different.
The tweet quoted doesn’t even mention the single market.
However, I guess the point is, if we want a say on EU *product* regulation, we have to be inside the tent.
And if we want frictionless trade with the EU (aka the single market) we also need to align on *process* regulation.
By exiting the EU we win theoretical autonomy in process, by sacrificing both influence and frictionless trade.
The autonomy is obvi not exported.
But we are talking about exports. The idea we can base our economy on the North Korea model is not worth debating.
The “process autonomy” you seek is theoretical because:
A- we don’t have it yet B- we may never have it, since our aim is actually to sign back into much of the single market to preserve access C- consists of rules that we are unlikely to break on our own account, anyway, eg. Labour and environmental protection - with the notable exception of FOM
Basically it comes down to a choice. Do we want prosperity and influence, or should we sacrifice this for greater control of migration from Europe.
This is why the argument is sterile. There’s no “right” answer to that question as the two terms are not comparable.
The EU helped create our large BoP imbalance
why the sudden concern ? You had 40 years to raise the subject.
An excellent article. Cummings always knew that the UK civil service was incapable of implementing Brexit and so it has proven. Need to stop pretending that they are dreadfully clever chaps and accept that they are massively overrated and generally incompetent. Might be time to abandon the concept of an impartial administrative body as they clearly are not impartial.
Not true! SeanT assured us that his contact high up in the leave campaign (Boris?) said our blokes are world beaters, geared up and ready to make a killing.
Cummings is warning that a new political party will arise to deal with the betrayal.
"the creation of new forces to reflect public contempt for both the main parties"
His points about how the public, in say a focus group, will view the final outcome are worth taking very seriously: You've paid billions for f-all and unskilled migration is still happening.
When you fit these views with some of the stuff Goodwin talks about changing voter attitudes in the west, then it looks like major change may be on the way.
Looks pretty obvious. The Leavers will form a 'True Brexit' party; the Tories will get wiped out. Exactly what Cameron called the referendum to avoid. Only the Tories could be so stupid as to go through all of this and end up in the same place.
Even in 2015 UKIP only got 12% and the Tories far from being 'wiped out' won an overall majority.
Cummings can found a BNP/UKIP light 'kick out all the immigrants and go straight to WTO terms' party if he wants. I doubt he will get very far
UKIP only got 12% because Cameron promised the referendum. And Cummings is not anti-immigration as you should know.
He just has to form a "Brexit Betrayed' movement. It will attract a lot of people - remember there is no other party of protest at the moment. And Tory members, who have made it absolutely clear that they want a real Brexit, will desert the party in droves after May has finished. You might be the only one left!
"Wacist" is not going to cut it as an approach to shut down debate on sensible immigration controls.
May has 9 months to ensure Brexit happens - otherwise she's out.
Wacist?
Either you can't spell (likely) or you are mocking the validity of critiques of nativist policies (probable).
An excellent article. Cummings always knew that the UK civil service was incapable of implementing Brexit and so it has proven. Need to stop pretending that they are dreadfully clever chaps and accept that they are massively overrated and generally incompetent. Might be time to abandon the concept of an impartial administrative body as they clearly are not impartial.
Not true! SeanT assured us that his contact high up in the leave campaign (Boris?) said our blokes are world beaters, geared up and ready to make a killing.
Cummings is warning that a new political party will arise to deal with the betrayal.
"the creation of new forces to reflect public contempt for both the main parties"
His points about how the public, in say a focus group, will view the final outcome are worth taking very seriously: You've paid billions for f-all and unskilled migration is still happening.
When you fit these views with some of the stuff Goodwin talks about changing voter attitudes in the west, then it looks like major change may be on the way.
Looks pretty obvious. The Leavers will form a 'True Brexit' party; the Tories will get wiped out. Exactly what Cameron called the referendum to avoid. Only the Tories could be so stupid as to go through all of this and end up in the same place.
Even in 2015 UKIP only got 12% and the Tories far from being 'wiped out' won an overall majority.
Cummings can found a BNP/UKIP light 'kick out all the immigrants and go straight to WTO terms' party if he wants. I doubt he will get very far
UKIP only got 12% because Cameron promised the referendum. And Cummings is not anti-immigration as you should know.
He just has to form a "Brexit Betrayed' movement. It will attract a lot of people - remember there is no other party of protest at the moment. And Tory members, who have made it absolutely clear that they want a real Brexit, will desert the party in droves after May has finished. You might be the only one left!
"Wacist" is not going to cut it as an approach to shut down debate on sensible immigration controls.
May has 9 months to ensure Brexit happens - otherwise she's out.
Wacist?
Either you can't spell (likely) or you are mocking the validity of critiques of nativist policies (probable).
The screed by Cummings is extraordinary. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy - his Brexit is crumbling away before his eyes, to the extent that we might even be worse off than under EU membership. And this is all down to the amateur hour haplessly trying to implement it. Unfortunately, whether we blame the politicians - or the intractability of the project itself - this was always going to be the danger. The Leavers should have been more honest and prepared us for the hard graft.
Who exactly did he think was going to implement it?
he thinks A50 should not have been started until serious third country prep had been done.
If you develop his argument fully he doesn't think Article 50 should have been invoked at all. He thinks we should have just tried to leverage the vote to disrupt and blackmail the EU until it somehow disappeared in a puff of smoke.
You see, this is the standard of lies and deception that we have to put up with from Remainers.
Product standards <> the Single Market. Two different things.
World trade is process agnostic - if China produces a widget, all we care about is whether it complies with (say) EU standards. We don't care if the Chinese destroyed the environment, exploited labour or even really whether the company that produced it was subject to state aid.
The SM is not a system of product regulation - anyone (eg the Chinese) can get their products to comply with EU product regulations. The SM is a complete system of regulation for the economies that are controlled within it.
Rogers is being dishonest to say that following someone else's product regulations is in any way equivalent to being bound by SM regulations. The SM heavily impacts sovereignty, product regulations are just administrative. And in many cases a single product can comply with multiple standards, even if they are different.
The tweet quoted doesn’t even mention the single market.
However, I guess the point is, if we want a say on EU *product* regulation, we have to be inside the tent.
And if we want frictionless trade with the EU (aka the single market) we also need to align on *process* regulation.
By exiting the EU we win theoretical autonomy in process, by sacrificing both influence and frictionless trade.
The autonomy is obvi not exported.
But we are talking about exports. The idea we can base our economy on the North Korea model is not worth debating.
The “process autonomy” you seek is theoretical because:
A- we don’t have it yet B- we may never have it, since our aim is actually to sign back into much of the single market to preserve access C- consists of rules that we are unlikely to break on our own account, anyway, eg. Labour and environmental protection - with the notable exception of FOM
Basically it comes down to a choice. Do we want prosperity and influence, or should we sacrifice this for greater control of migration from Europe.
This is why the argument is sterile. There’s no “right” answer to that question as the two terms are not comparable.
The EU helped create our large BoP imbalance
why the sudden concern ? You had 40 years to raise the subject.
Who is ‘you’? I wasn’t even alive 40 years ago. I’m talking about the here and now, conscious as I am that Brexiters live in the past.
"Rather than vilifying Peterson, I’d love to see left-of-center writers, thinkers, and political commentators engage with his ideas in challenging, but also thoughtful and respectful ways. Personally, I see him as a worthy interlocutor for those of us who believe that our societies need paradigm-shifting reforms, but reject the drive towards destruction for destruction’s sake that currently animates the most extreme fringes of the Right and Left alike. If we hope to see a better future, the Left needs to break out of its increasingly stultifying discursive box, stop denouncing everyone who won’t dutifully recite the latest list of hashtag slogans as ‘alt-Right,’ and open up to the possibility of a new paradigm."
Outside of Glasgow and Edinburgh, the towns in between, and Dundee and Aberdeen, Scotland is a remarkably empty country.
That just indicates what one is familiar with, one might as well say that England is a remarkably full country. Or over full, as the racists and xenophobes would say.
Outside of Glasgow and Edinburgh, the towns in between, and Dundee and Aberdeen, Scotland is a remarkably empty country.
That just indicates what one is familiar with, one might as well say that England is a remarkably full country. Or over full as the racists and xenophobes might say.
England is remarkably densely populated. If France had England's population density, it would have 200 m people and be one of the world's superpowers.
Outside of Glasgow and Edinburgh, the towns in between, and Dundee and Aberdeen, Scotland is a remarkably empty country.
That just indicates what one is familiar with, one might as well say that England is a remarkably full country. Or over full as the racists and xenophobes might say.
England is remarkably densely populated. If France had England's population density, it would have 200 m people and be one of the world's superpowers.
Of course France is a state while England is part of a state. In any case I'd hope that the French would be a bit more efficient about spreading the population (and its super power inducing benefits).
Comments
Apart from the current balance of the House of Commons. And the House of Lords. And the judiciary. And the civil service. And the BBC. And Londoners. And the university towns. Young people in general, actually.
Northern Ireland can be dispensed with too, given the problems it causes. Scotland as well, if necessary. The car industry can be sacrificed if its needs get in the way.
So Leavers are looking for a Brexit for aged rural England and Wales. Always provided they don't get in the way either.
Corbyn made virtually no net gains from 2015 Tory voters at all at the last general election.
His gains came from 2015 staunch Leaver UKIP voters and strong Remain LD, Green and SNP and young voters as well as a few diehard Remainer Tory voters.
He will find that coalition difficult to maintain in full post Brexit
I think I will give it a miss and watch the new Jurassic World film instead
From net +58 to +43 among Conservative voters in a month is not pretty...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-only-one-in-three-people-believe-theresa-may-can-win-a-good-deal-on-europe-a3847626.html
Science has no idea how reality actually functions which seems a bit similar to Brexiteers view of the EU
Their French-made blue passports
2% is a figure plucked out of the air by politicians who can't add up.
That is, neutral countries which don't rely on 'collective security' are happy to spend rather less than NATO. So much for 'sharing the cost' reducing the cost.
I recall reading an ex Swedish general saying the reality of Sweden’s defence was to be able to hold the Russians long enough to make the phone call to the Americans and shout “help” down the line.
"the creation of new forces to reflect public contempt for both the main parties"
His points about how the public, in say a focus group, will view the final outcome are worth taking very seriously: You've paid billions for f-all and unskilled migration is still happening.
When you fit these views with some of the stuff Goodwin talks about changing voter attitudes in the west, then it looks like major change may be on the way.
And if you don't abide by them you must be a fool
We have the power to control the whole land
You never must question our motives or plans -
cause well outlaw your voices, do anything we want
we've nothing to fear from the nation
Well throw you out of your houses if you get too much
If we have to well destroy your generation
cause we've built up a frontage and we've gained respect
there's no one to endanger our position"
Yes, just about sums up the EU.
Byyyyeeee!!!!!!!!!!
Will Trump claim this as the biggest ever concession in the field of international diplomacy?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44235402
Product standards <> the Single Market. Two different things.
World trade is process agnostic - if China produces a widget, all we care about is whether it complies with (say) EU standards. We don't care if the Chinese destroyed the environment, exploited labour or even really whether the company that produced it was subject to state aid.
The SM is not a system of product regulation - anyone (eg the Chinese) can get their products to comply with EU product regulations. The SM is a complete system of regulation for the economies that are controlled within it.
Rogers is being dishonest to say that following someone else's product regulations is in any way equivalent to being bound by SM regulations. The SM heavily impacts sovereignty, product regulations are just administrative. And in many cases a single product can comply with multiple standards, even if they are different.
First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price? Only, this one can be kept secret!
However, I guess the point is, if we want a say on EU *product* regulation, we have to be inside the tent.
And if we want frictionless trade with the EU (aka the single market) we also need to align on *process* regulation.
By exiting the EU we win theoretical autonomy in process, by sacrificing both influence and frictionless trade.
Cummings can found a BNP/UKIP light 'kick out all the immigrants and go straight to WTO terms' party if he wants. I doubt he will get very far
It is also untrue to say that everyone follows the regulations of the three economies listed. Remember, the vast majority of goods are not exported.
80% on Google Users
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/andrew-sullivan-will-there-always-be-an-england.html
He just has to form a "Brexit Betrayed' movement. It will attract a lot of people - remember there is no other party of protest at the moment. And Tory members, who have made it absolutely clear that they want a real Brexit, will desert the party in droves after May has finished. You might be the only one left!
Your last point is of course rubbish, UKIP members have been defecting post Brexit to the Tories, if a few go to Cummings trying to revive a dead parrot party so be it and of course plenty of Labour voters now voting for Corbyn voted for UKIP in 2015 too
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/999607377002418176
I wasn't aware responsibility for the nuclear trigger was in his brief.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/999624874783133696
The defence is "Boris rumbled them pretty quickly".....after 18 minutes....astonishingly amateurish....
Austria and Finland became non-aligned under international treaties in order to, er, reduce the risk of conflict (cf the setting up of the EU). It was done to move towards a more stable world order, not enable them to rely on someone else's weapons.
As another contributor implied, if one cuts out the MoD stupidity and waste, UK spending on defence essentials probably is only ~1.5%. That approximates some of the higher-spending neutral countries. NATO lost its raison d'etre in ~1991 when the Warsaw Pact decided to dissolve itself.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/999629348805251077
We ought to be friendly co-operative neighbours with them, if they want to be. If they don't want to be then so be it but to quote their own phrase "no cherrypicking". They don't get to freeride off our security coattails while denying us a win/win deal.
May has 9 months to ensure Brexit happens - otherwise she's out.
The idea we can base our economy on the North Korea model is not worth debating.
The “process autonomy” you seek is theoretical because:
A- we don’t have it yet
B- we may never have it, since our aim is actually to sign back into much of the single market to preserve access
C- consists of rules that we are unlikely to break on our own account, anyway, eg. Labour and environmental protection - with the notable exception of FOM
Basically it comes down to a choice.
Do we want prosperity and influence, or should we sacrifice this for greater control of migration from Europe.
This is why the argument is sterile. There’s no “right” answer to that question as the two terms are not comparable.
On citizen's rights, the Report states that while the Home Office faces a number of significant challenges in delivering an orderly transition for EU citizens living in the UK, the Government has at least set out the general, overarching structure of the Settled Status application process. It is important that the process is quick, simple and available to people using a variety of technological platforms.
There is little sign, however, that the same level of organisational planning has started in many EU Member States. Member States must set out what UK citizens should do to regularise their residential status, and communicate this information clearly.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/exiting-the-european-union-committee/news-parliament-2017/progress-negotiations-may-report-published-17-19/
DUP East Londonderry MP Gregory Campbell accused Mr Corbyn of snubbing a request to meet with IRA victims. Labour said it hadn't received enough notice, but that the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary of State Tony Lloyd has taken up the invite on behalf of his party leader.
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/999218036296028160
I take the view that TM delayed as long as she could given the risk of being toppled by Brexiteers.
Still the piece is very interesting, and a useful reminder that Leave is not a monolithic block, that it contains lots of different views.
https://tinyurl.com/y9zt384s
why the sudden concern ? You had 40 years to raise the subject.
Either you can't spell (likely) or you are mocking the validity of critiques of nativist policies (probable).
https://order-order.com/2018/05/24/kremlin-pranksters-fail-to-get-boris-to-say-anything-interesting/
I’m talking about the here and now, conscious as I am that Brexiters live in the past.
http://quillette.com/2018/05/22/jordan-peterson-failure-left/
"Rather than vilifying Peterson, I’d love to see left-of-center writers, thinkers, and political commentators engage with his ideas in challenging, but also thoughtful and respectful ways. Personally, I see him as a worthy interlocutor for those of us who believe that our societies need paradigm-shifting reforms, but reject the drive towards destruction for destruction’s sake that currently animates the most extreme fringes of the Right and Left alike. If we hope to see a better future, the Left needs to break out of its increasingly stultifying discursive box, stop denouncing everyone who won’t dutifully recite the latest list of hashtag slogans as ‘alt-Right,’ and open up to the possibility of a new paradigm."