People keep saying this, but it’s bollocks. There’s a far greater British diaspora in NZ, Australia and Canada, and both nations have or are looking to conclude free trade deals with both the UK and EU.
Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.
Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the UK going forward, proximity does matter. There are no automotive supply chains that involve stuff going between Australia and the UK, because the cost of carrying inventory is too high. The EU is on our doorstep, and will likely be larger than the EU, China, the US or our former Empire, as a market for the foreseeable future.
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
isnt that because Australia no longer has a car industry ?
here are lots of automotive supply chains which involve products moving between Europe, Japan, China and N America. Evidently localisation is always best which is why we should assist onshoring.
Well, I do worry that we are going down the Australia route: it was simply too small to have an entire automotive supply chain.
I was agnostic about the Lords. Slightly against the principle but not enough to make a fuss. However, they are takin the piss now. Get rid of the lot, says I.
Prince Harry supports Brexit, "It's just something we have to try".
That's Harry Kane and Harry Windsor.
Possibly the two most popular men in the Kingdom,
Eat crow, you europedophile losers.
He's gonna be disappointed then when we end up with BINO
It’s according to Thomas Markle - this is what Markle said:
TM: It was just a loose conversation about something we have to try. There was no real commitment to it. PM: Do you think he was in favour of it? TM: I think he was open to the experiment. I mean, if it’s true (that’s a big if), it’s not really a massive Pro Brexit stance. Reminds me a lot of The Sun’s claim the Queen supported Brexit a few years earlier.
Indeed. It's about as reliable and worthwhile as any of SeanT's rants.
Most of the country are now open to Brexit as they have accepted the result and just want to get on with it. It doesn't mean Harry has turned into Jacob Rees Mogg.
Given the Royal family's obvious links to the Anglosphere and the Commonwealth it's inevitable they have had conflicted loyalties since 1973 when we essentially turned our back on the latter for Brussels. Whether Prince William or George eventually become Kings of Jamaica, Australia, NZ and Canada of course is harder to say.
I'm frankly astonished the Queen is still queen of Jamaica. I think it requires a referendum to change, but IIRC both main parties support becoming a republic, so not sure what the hold up is.
latest poll says in a split between the CSU and CDU the CSU would be on 18% while Merkel's CDU would be on 22%. This would make the CSU the second strongest party in Germany, probably picking up soft AfD votes.
I was agnostic about the Lords. Slightly against the principle but not enough to make a fuss. However, they are takin the piss now. Get rid of the lot, says I.
That assumes that parliament makes perfect legislation that does not need amending. I am far from convinced that is the case.
The HoL may need altering, but getting rid of it may cause far more problems than the current system.
latest poll says in a split between the CSU and CDU the CSU would be on 18% while Merkel's CDU would be on 22%. This would make the CSU the second strongest party in Germany, probably picking up soft AfD votes.
I guess the problem the CSU has is that it has literally no infrastructure outside of Bavaria, and would likely to struggle to make the 5% cutoff in most Lander.
People keep saying this, but it’s bollocks. There’s a far greater British diaspora in NZ, Australia and Canada, and both nations have or are looking to conclude free trade deals with both the UK and EU.
Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.
Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For heavy machinery and manufacture it probably makes a difference but that is a small part of the economy. It is largely irrelevant for services. I am not arguing its irrelevant but I am arguing against the claim it’s decisive.
The vast majority of global growth in future will come from outside the EU. I expect our economy and trading patterns to increasingly reflect that over time as, arguably, they already are with EU trade being already outnumbered by non-EU trade (although the way the europhiles try and get around that one is to count the non-EU trade contingent upon EU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what services jobs do you expect to replace the high-wage manufacturing jobs that will be lost as a result of a bad Brexit deal? Who do you expect us to negotiate services-based FTAs with that will make up for the trading benefis we lose once we leave?
Obviously trade will grow faster with developing economies rather than developed ones. But it will take decades, if not centuries, for it to be supplanted as our biggest export destination.
Them’s the facts.
I love your use of ‘high wage’ there, as if services jobs aren’t. Consultancy, engineering and design, financial services and insurance, legal services, education, new software and technology, retail, media and communications.
I would look for services deals with China, Brazil, India, the US, Nigeria and Vietnam, and existing common law countries.
And it won’t take “centuries”, either. It will take about 20-30 years at most. And non-EU countries are already our biggest export destination.
Sorry.
And for the record I’m not arguing for a “bad” Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
There's a difference between an amendment and a 180 degree handbrake turn. The instigators are happy to admit they aim to stop the government from implementing the referendum result.
People keep saying this, but it’s bollocks. There’s a far greater British diaspora in NZ, Australia and Canada, and both nations have or are looking to conclude free trade deals with both the UK and EU.
Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.
Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the UK going forward, proximity does matter. There are no automotive supply chains that involve stuff going between Australia and the UK, because the cost of carrying inventory is too high. The EU is on our doorstep, and will likely be larger than the EU, China, the US or our former Empire, as a market for the foreseeable future.
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
isnt that because Australia no longer has a car industry ?
here are lots of automotive supply chains which involve products moving between Europe, Japan, China and N America. Evidently localisation is always best which is why we should assist onshoring.
Well, I do worry that we are going down the Australia route: it was simply too small to have an entire automotive supply chain.
I thought its problem was BL style unions.
From a manufacturing perspective I cant see supply chains being the key issue as the trend has been for more models based on shorter production runs. To me it's more about skills, R&D and encouraging investment by suppliers.
People keep saying this, but it’s bollocks. There’s a far greater British diaspora in NZ, Australia and Canada, and both nations have or are looking to conclude free trade deals with both the UK and EU.
Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.
Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the UK going forward, proximity does matter. There are no automotive supply chains that involve stuff going between Australia and the UK, because the cost of carrying inventory is too high. The EU is on our doorstep, and will likely be larger than the EU, China, the US or our former Empire, as a market for the foreseeable future.
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
isnt that because Australia no longer has a car industry ?
here are lots of automotive supply chains which involve products moving between Europe, Japan, China and N America. Evidently localisation is always best which is why we should assist onshoring.
Well, I do worry that we are going down the Australia route: it was simply too small to have an entire automotive supply chain.
The UK is looking for close collaboration and alignment in goods, but freedom on services. The question is whether the EU will give it to us.
I think it will on the first (because it’s in its direct interests to do so) but wants to constrain us on the second.
I just don’t know where the negotiation will end up.
Just think, if England hadn't been defeated in the 1970 World Cup we might not be leaving the EU now... As Heath might never have become PM in the 1970 UK General Election and so we might never have joined the EEC in the first place...
I think we would . Harold Wilson was already negotiating to gain entry following De Gaulle's resignation in 1969.
It is really hard to see how the UK could have stayed out. The mistake was not getting in at the beginning.
The mistake was joining.
A mistake was not stopping the moves to federalism in the late 1980s and, if the writing really was on the wall, not carving out the UK as an associate to the EU in Maastricht, rather than a full member of it.
If there was a true blunder, it was the repeated denying of a referendum on Lisbon, despite similar votes in Europe, and pledges from various leaders. Both Europhiles and Europhobes ought to be able to agree on that one.
I agree. It was one of those cunning plans, like the Cunningham amendment to the Scottish Devolution Bill, that comes back to bite you, years later.
latest poll says in a split between the CSU and CDU the CSU would be on 18% while Merkel's CDU would be on 22%. This would make the CSU the second strongest party in Germany, probably picking up soft AfD votes.
I guess the problem the CSU has is that it has literally no infrastructure outside of Bavaria, and would likely to struggle to make the 5% cutoff in most Lander.
certainly on the infrastructure, but the poll is based on a nationwide basis where CSU competes nationally and the CDU can stand in Bavaria. I suspect the CSU would pick up a lot of the AfD protest vote as voters find an established party closer to their views.
The Lords are overriding a manifesto commitment from a sitting government in blatant overruling of the British constitution. May should add another 100 peers.
Now let us see whether the Anglo-French Dominic Grieve continues to serve his other country.
Yes, let the Cons use their massive majority in the Commons...
latest poll says in a split between the CSU and CDU the CSU would be on 18% while Merkel's CDU would be on 22%. This would make the CSU the second strongest party in Germany, probably picking up soft AfD votes.
Merkel would no doubt far prefer to be in coalition with the Greens than the CSU, but that would leave a huge number of right wing MP's opposed to her in the Bundestag.
""There has been an unacceptable deterioration in quality at one firm, KPMG," the FRC said in a statement. "50% of KPMG's FTSE 350 audits required more than just limited improvements, compared to 35% in the previous year.""
Looks like the options are likely to be no deal, or retaining the costs of membership with few of the benefits. Both would cause ructions.
No, I think the most likely is impenetrable fudge, with the details to be sorted during a transitional period with no legally-binding duration.
Yes I am in the we won’t have planes falling out of the sky camp.
There is currently plenty of drafting and discussing going on which will result in as you say an impenetrable agreement many miles long with few gotcha paragraphs.
The majority went up. One must assume that their lordships concluded that the House of Commons needed a fresh opportunity to consider the proposition, given that the government had not delivered the amendment that the rebels had understood to have been promised.
This seems an entirely normal line of thought. So we should not be surprised to see the unhinged Brexiteers complaining that the government should have been allowed to get its way through deceit and threatening the House of Lords with abolition for having the temerity to give the Commons a fair opportunity to consider the matter.
This is looking like Dementia Tax II. Surely she'll be nicknamed Theresa the Taxing Tory. She's been getting the Right's gander up for some time. This latest tomfoolery - hiking taxes to fund the NHS of all things - might finally persuade them to pull the plug.
No it isn't, further property taxes are deeply unpopular, however polling shows a clear majority of voters support increasing National Insurance to provide more funds for the NHS and social care and a plurality support an increase in Income Tax to provide more funds for the NHS and social care
This is looking like Dementia Tax II. Surely she'll be nicknamed Theresa the Taxing Tory. She's been getting the Right's gander up for some time. This latest tomfoolery - hiking taxes to fund the NHS of all things - might finally persuade them to pull the plug.
No it isn't, further property taxes are deeply unpopula8r, however polling shows a clear majority of voters support increasing National Insurance to provide more funds for the NHS and social care and a plurality support an increase in Income Tax to provide more funds for the NHS and social care
LOL, can you get any nuttier
Not nutty just what the polls show, voters are deeply opposed to any new estate taxes on death to pay for social care but do support by a clear majority increased national insurance to pay for the NHS and social care while a plurality support increasing income tax to pay for it
It was poor and rather funny with the penalty and I doubt it heralds and all conquering England march to the final'
Looking at the draw after Germany lost we might be better off going through runners up, if we win the group we likely face Germany or Brazil in the quarter finals as runners up we likely face Mexico (though Mexico could keep up their form of course)
England were mediocre at best, toiled all second half and get lucky 91st minute gift to win. When they come up against a real team like Spain or Portugal they will get humped.
People keep saying this, but it’s bollocks. There’s a far greater British diaspora in NZ, Australia and Canada, and both nations have or are looking to conclude free trade deals with both the UK and EU.
Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.
Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For heavy machinery and manufacture it probably makes a difference but that is a small part of the economy. It is largely irrelevant for services. I am not arguing its irrelevant but I am arguing against the claim it’s decisive.
The vast majority of global growthEU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what leave?
Obviously trade will grow faster with developing economies rather than developed ones. But it will take decades, if not centuries, for it to be supplanted as our biggest export destination.
Them’s the facts.
I love your use of ‘high wage’ there, as if services jobs aren’t. Consultancy, engineering and design, financial services and insurance, legal services, education, new software and technology, retail, media and communications.
I would look for services deals with China, Brazil, India, the US, Nigeria and Vietnam, and existing common law countries.
And it won’t take “centuries”, either. It will take about 20-30 years at most. And non-EU countries are already our biggest export destination.
Sorry.
And for the record I’m not arguing for a “bad” Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The point about high wage manufacturing jobs is that they tend to be concentrated in areas where high wage services jobs are unlikely to be created. You’re not going to see many redundant car workers in Sundetland become consultants or lawyers. Should these factories close the impact on whole communities will be big and longlasting - see deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s.
The idea that the single market will not be our biggest export destination in 20 years is for the fairies - unless we really do crash out.
latest poll says in a split between the CSU and CDU the CSU would be on 18% while Merkel's CDU would be on 22%. This would make the CSU the second strongest party in Germany, probably picking up soft AfD votes.
Merkel would no doubt far prefer to be in coalition with the Greens than the CSU, but that would leave a huge number of right wing MP's opposed to her in the Bundestag.
It would also put the CSU + AfD + FDP combined on close to 300 seats, more than the CDU/CSU are on now
The majority went up. One must assume that their lordships concluded that the House of Commons needed a fresh opportunity to consider the proposition, given that the government had not delivered the amendment that the rebels had understood to have been promised.
This seems an entirely normal line of thought. So we should not be surprised to see the unhinged Brexiteers complaining that the government should have been allowed to get its way through deceit and threatening the House of Lords with abolition for having the temerity to give the Commons a fair opportunity to consider the matter.
There is no evidence of deceit other than uncorroborated claims by Grieve et al. The Lords is overruling a government manifesto in an unconstitutional power grab. But Remainers don't care about democracy so don't care.
HHAHAHAHAHAH Good to see lots of depressed Remoaners on here tonight, hoping England would lose and we'd all collapse and accept a 2nd referendum, policed by Belgians with watercannons outside the voting booths.
Heh.
Cry God for Harry, Brexit and St George, you treacherous europhile wankers.
+1
Stop being a fucking twat. I have been following England - win or lose - for 35 years.
As I said before, ignore him. Some on this site have been calling Remainers ‘traitors’ now for sometime so this is unsurprising in some respects. I guess behaviour such as what we’ve seen tonight provides yet explanation as why so many of my generation don’t have a good image of the Conservative Party.
Nah - much simpler. Some luck @MaxPB actually believe it when they call you a “traitor”.
@seant is having fun, yanking your chain and probably drunk. Or maybe all three. Enjoy his hyperbole for what it is - until @seant insults you, you’ve not graduated to being a full member of PB..
Now, now, I don't believe that anyone who voted remain is a traitor. My list is actually quite short, it includes Dominic Grieve and just two posters on this site. Miss Apocalypse is not one of them.
I'm not surprised their Lordships decided to give this particular one another try given what went down in the Commons last week.
For all the outrage some will have at this. if the Commons do indeed accept it this time, which seems to be at least possible, then parliament's will will have been done, in unorthodox fashion. If it is the will of the Commons to say no to this then they will say no again. If it they say yes, then the will of the Commons will have changed.
The questions are if the Commons rebels will take on the government this time, and if they don't (or it is not enough) how much more will the Lords push it?
And presumably if the Commons say “yes” that is their final and settled will and can’t be challenged. Seems a little unbalanced.
I’m having lunch with Hailsham on Sunday (it’s his golden wedding anniversary), that’s going to be fun
I didn't say a yes couldn't be challenged in theory . Their will might change again. But it's a process, and a yes would agree with the Lords so the ping Pong would end.
It was poor and rather funny with the penalty and I doubt it heralds and all conquering England march to the final'
Looking at the draw after Germany lost we might be better off going through runners up, if we win the group we likely face Germany or Brazil in the quarter finals as runners up we likely face Mexico (though Mexico could keep up their form of course)
England were mediocre at best, toiled all second half and get lucky 91st minute gift to win. When they come up against a real team like Spain or Portugal they will get humped.'
There's a difference between an amendment and a 180 degree handbrake turn. The instigators are happy to admit they aim to stop the government from implementing the referendum result.
Indeed. But getting rid of the House of Lords over this issue might cause much worse issues in the future.
Prince Harry supports Brexit, "It's just something we have to try".
That's Harry Kane and Harry Windsor.
Possibly the two most popular men in the Kingdom,
Eat crow, you europedophile losers.
He's gonna be disappointed then when we end up with BINO
It’s according to Thomas Markle - this is what Markle said:
TM: It was just a loose conversation about something we have to try. There was no real commitment to it. PM: Do you think he was in favour of it? TM: I think he was open to the experiment. I mean, if it’s true (that’s a big if), it’s not really a massive Pro Brexit stance. Reminds me a lot of The Sun’s claim the Queen supported Brexit a few years earlier.
Indeed. It's about as reliable and worthwhile as any of SeanT's rants.
Most of the country are now open to Brexit as they have accepted the result and just want to get on with it. It doesn't mean Harry has turned into Jacob Rees Mogg.
Given the Royal family's obvious links to the Anglosphere and the Commonwealth it's inevitable they have had conflicted loyalties since 1973 when we essentially turned our back on the latter for Brussels. Whether Prince William or George eventually become Kings of Jamaica, Australia, NZ and Canada of course is harder to say.
I'm frankly astonished the Queen is still queen of Jamaica. I think it requires a referendum to change, but IIRC both main parties support becoming a republic, so not sure what the hold up is.
Referenda can have unplanned for outcomes?
Indeed, buy if both main parties are agreed you'd think after decades of talking about it they'd be relatively confident of winning.
People keep saying this, but it’s bollocks. There’s a far greater British diaspora in NZ, Australia and Canada, and both nations have or are looking to conclude free trade deals with both the UK and EU.
Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.
Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For heavy machinery and manufacture it probably makes a difference but that is a small part of the economy. It is largely irrelevant for services. I am not arguing its irrelevant but I am arguing against the claim it’s decisive.
The vast majority of global growthEU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what leave?
Obviously trade will grow faster with developing economies rather than developed ones. But it will take decades, if not centuries, for it to be supplanted as our biggest export destination.
Them’s the facts.
I love your use of ‘high wage’ there, as if services jobs aren’t. Consultancy, engineering and design, financial services and insurance, legal services, education, new software and technology, retail, media and communications.
I would look for services deals with China, Brazil, India, the US, Nigeria and Vietnam, and existing common law countries.
And it won’t take “centuries”, either. It will take about 20-30 years at most. And non-EU countries are already our biggest export destination.
Sorry.
And for the record I’m not arguing for a “bad” Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The point about high wage manufacturing jobs is that they tend to be concentrated in areas where high wage services jobs are unlikely to be created. You’re not going to see many redundant car workers in Sundetland become consultants or lawyers. Should these factories close the impact on whole communities will be big and longlasting - see deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s.
The idea that the single market will not be our biggest export destination in 20 years is for the fairies - unless we really do crash out.
Good luck with those services FTAs!
our biggest drop in manufacturing was in the 2000s under Blair.
Just think, if England hadn't been defeated in the 1970 World Cup we might not be leaving the EU now... As Heath might never have become PM in the 1970 UK General Election and so we might never have joined the EEC in the first place...
I think we would . Harold Wilson was already negotiating to gain entry following De Gaulle's resignation in 1969.
It is really hard to see how the UK could have stayed out. The mistake was not getting in at the beginning.
The mistake was joining.
The UK should have never left EFTA for the EEC, we will most likely eventually end back in the former with Norway, Switzerland and Iceland anyway
Time for 500 new Brexit peers. I'm free until October, Theresa.
Quite apart from being undemocratic, I don't think it could be done. The Queen appoints peers on the advice of the PM, and such an obviously political stunt would compromise the impartiality of the crown. I can't see how Her Majesty could agree to it.
The vast majority of global growth in future will come from outside the EU.
That argument becomes even more potent if you draw the boundary smaller. Just think how much global growth will be outside the UK. Is that a reason why Yorkshire should want its own trade deals?
Mr. Recidivist, I think when the people consider undemocratic courses of action, the unelected seeking to water down, delay, and deny the result of a referendum might rank highly.
Macron was right of course, it was a formal official function but notice the teenager had been singing the socialist Internationale and is probably another mover to the Melenchon camp
Time for 500 new Brexit peers. I'm free until October, Theresa.
Quite apart from being undemocratic, I don't think it could be done. The Queen appoints peers on the advice of the PM, and such an obviously political stunt would compromise the impartiality of the crown. I can't see how Her Majesty could agree to it.
George Vth threatened to appoint lots of new Liberal Peers in 1911 if Tory Peers did not back down over opposing the Parliament Act
The vast majority of global growth in future will come from outside the EU.
That argument becomes even more potent if you draw the boundary smaller. Just think how much global growth will be outside the UK. Is that a reason why Yorkshire should want its own trade deals?
The majority went up. One must assume that their lordships concluded that the House of Commons needed a fresh opportunity to consider the proposition, given that the government had not delivered the amendment that the rebels had understood to have been promised.
This seems an entirely normal line of thought. So we should not be surprised to see the unhinged Brexiteers complaining that the government should have been allowed to get its way through deceit and threatening the House of Lords with abolition for having the temerity to give the Commons a fair opportunity to consider the matter.
There is no evidence of deceit other than uncorroborated claims by Grieve et al. The Lords is overruling a government manifesto in an unconstitutional power grab. But Remainers don't care about democracy so don't care.
Is it unconstitutional though? It's not a majority government so does the Salisbury convention apply? And It Is only a convention so does not have the force of law even though conventions are hugely important to our system.
On the deceit issue we were not there but several MPs have stated or leaked that they did not get what they were promised. The alternative to May deceiving them is they were too stupid to realise what she meant. Even if that is true their anger remains the same.
Given the rebel's anger the Lords have some cause at least to send this one back - there is a chance the Commons will change its mind. They can't do that endlessly, but whatever the motives of Hailsham the Moat Man I think it not that unreasonable to try one more time.
The vast majority of global growth in future will come from outside the EU.
That argument becomes even more potent if you draw the boundary smaller. Just think how much global growth will be outside the UK. Is that a reason why Yorkshire should want its own trade deals?
So Scotland wont be looking deals then ?
Scotland will use its new-found sovereignty wisely by becoming a full member of the EU.
The majority went up. One must assume that their lordships concluded that the House of Commons needed a fresh opportunity to consider the proposition, given that the government had not delivered the amendment that the rebels had understood to have been promised.
This seems an entirely normal line of thought. So we should not be surprised to see the unhinged Brexiteers complaining that the government should have been allowed to get its way through deceit and threatening the House of Lords with abolition for having the temerity to give the Commons a fair opportunity to consider the matter.
There is no evidence of deceit other than uncorroborated claims by Grieve et al. The Lords is overruling a government manifesto in an unconstitutional power grab. But Remainers don't care about democracy so don't care.
Three completely incorrect consecutive sentences. After your attack on Dominic Grieve’s integrity on race grounds earlier, you’re on a roll.
Mr. Recidivist, I think when the people consider undemocratic courses of action, the unelected seeking to water down, delay, and deny the result of a referendum might rank highly.
The result of the referendum was simply to leave the EU. Nobody is blocking or watering that down.
The vast majority of global growth in future will come from outside the EU.
That argument becomes even more potent if you draw the boundary smaller. Just think how much global growth will be outside the UK. Is that a reason why Yorkshire should want its own trade deals?
So Scotland wont be looking deals then ?
Scotland will use its new-found sovereignty wisely by becoming a full member of the EU.
So when will you let Okney and Shetland go ? Theyll do better outside Scotland.
The majority went up. One must assume that their lordships concluded that the House of Commons needed a fresh opportunity to consider the proposition, given that the government had not delivered the amendment that the rebels had understood to have been promised.
This seems an entirely normal line of thought. So we should not be surprised to see the unhinged Brexiteers complaining that the government should have been allowed to get its way through deceit and threatening the House of Lords with abolition for having the temerity to give the Commons a fair opportunity to consider the matter.
There is no evidence of deceit other than uncorroborated claims by Grieve et al. The Lords is overruling a government manifesto in an unconstitutional power grab. But Remainers don't care about democracy so don't care.
Since much of this comes down to what was said in a rushed private meeting, surely the claims from the other side (May et al) are also uncorroborated? It simply comes down to who you trust.
In addition, as the meeting was an absolute rushed fudge, it's perfectly possible that the 'truth' lies somewhere inbetween, and that the meeting was a real dog's dinner.
Given May's political skills, I'd say it was more chaos than planned.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For heavy machinery and manufacture it probably makes a difference but that is a small part of the economy. It is largely irrelevant for services. I am not arguing its irrelevant but I am arguing against the claim it’s decisive.
The vast majority of global growthEU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what leave?
Obviously trade will grow faster with developing economies rather than developed ones. But it will take decades, if not centuries, for it to be supplanted as our biggest export destination.
Them’s the facts.
I love your use of ‘high wage’ there, as if services jobs aren’t. Consultancy, engineering and design, financial services and insurance, legal services, education, new software and technology, retail, media and communications.
I would look for services deals with China, Brazil, India, the US, Nigeria and Vietnam, and existing common law countries.
And it won’t take “centuries”, either. It will take about 20-30 years at most. And non-EU countries are already our biggest export destination.
Sorry.
And for the record I’m not arguing for a “bad” Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The point about high wage manufacturing jobs is that they tend to be concentrated in areas where high wage services jobs are unlikely to be created. You’re not going to see many redundant car workers in Sundetland become consultants or lawyers. Should these factories close the impact on whole communities will be big and longlasting - see deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s.
The idea that the single market will not be our biggest export destination in 20 years is for the fairies - unless we really do crash out.
Good luck with those services FTAs!
Interesting how you refer to 'deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s' which saw manufacturing output rise but don't mention the actual deindustrialisation between 1997 and 2010.
It was poor and rather funny with the penalty and I doubt it heralds and all conquering England march to the final'
Looking at the draw after Germany lost we might be better off going through runners up, if we win the group we likely face Germany or Brazil in the quarter finals as runners up we likely face Mexico (though Mexico could keep up their form of course)
England were mediocre at best, toiled all second half and get lucky 91st minute gift to win. When they come up against a real team like Spain or Portugal they will get humped.'
The vast majority of global growth in future will come from outside the EU.
That argument becomes even more potent if you draw the boundary smaller. Just think how much global growth will be outside the UK. Is that a reason why Yorkshire should want its own trade deals?
So Scotland wont be looking deals then ?
Scotland will use its new-found sovereignty wisely by becoming a full member of the EU.
So when will you let Okney and Shetland go ? Theyll do better outside Scotland.
Mr. Recidivist, I think when the people consider undemocratic courses of action, the unelected seeking to water down, delay, and deny the result of a referendum might rank highly.
There is clearly a danger of that, but if the Commons agree to the latest amendment then it won't be the unelected doing it (even though they sent it back to the Commons ), and iirc it's the only one that's been sent back. If the Gov win again and the Lords persist in sending it back again I think that woukd be hard to justify, but on the other amendments they did their job, whatever the motives- they suggested changes to the Commons, who said no.
Going back again on one point is not enough piss taking , yet, to stir up so much anger
The vast majority of global growth in future will come from outside the EU.
That argument becomes even more potent if you draw the boundary smaller. Just think how much global growth will be outside the UK. Is that a reason why Yorkshire should want its own trade deals?
So Scotland wont be looking deals then ?
Scotland will use its new-found sovereignty wisely by becoming a full member of the EU.
Given over a third of SNP voters voted Leave as did over a third of Scots as a whole a hypothetical independent Scotland might just join Norway and Iceland in the EEA or EFTA rather than the full EU
It was poor and rather funny with the penalty and I doubt it heralds and all conquering England march to the final'
Looking at the draw after Germany lost we might be better off going through runners up, if we win the group we likely face Germany or Brazil in the quarter finals as runners up we likely face Mexico (though Mexico could keep up their form of course)
England were mediocre at best, toiled all second half and get lucky 91st minute gift to win. When they come up against a real team like Spain or Portugal they will get humped.'
The vast majority of global growth in future will come from outside the EU.
That argument becomes even more potent if you draw the boundary smaller. Just think how much global growth will be outside the UK. Is that a reason why Yorkshire should want its own trade deals?
So Scotland wont be looking deals then ?
Scotland will use its new-found sovereignty wisely by becoming a full member of the EU.
So when will you let Okney and Shetland go ? Theyll do better outside Scotland.
The majority went up. One must assume that their lordships concluded that the House of Commons needed a fresh opportunity to consider the proposition, given that the government had not delivered the amendment that the rebels had understood to have been promised.
This seems an entirely normal line of thought. So we should not be surprised to see the unhinged Brexiteers complaining that the government should have been allowed to get its way through deceit and threatening the House of Lords with abolition for having the temerity to give the Commons a fair opportunity to consider the matter.
There is no evidence of deceit other than uncorroborated claims by Grieve et al. The Lords is overruling a government manifesto in an unconstitutional power grab. But Remainers don't care about democracy so don't care.
Since much of this comes down to what was said in a rushed private meeting, surely the claims from the other side (May et al) are also uncorroborated? It simply comes down to who you trust.
In addition, as the meeting was an absolute rushed fudge, it's perfectly possible that the 'truth' lies somewhere inbetween, and that the meeting was a real dog's dinner.
Given May's political skills, I'd say it was more chaos than planned.
My guess is they panicked and over promised in the meeting, then when they saw the numbers , including labour leavers, realised they would have won anyway and the harder Brexiteers got angry, so a fudge was attempted.
The vast majority of global growth in future will come from outside the EU.
That argument becomes even more potent if you draw the boundary smaller. Just think how much global growth will be outside the UK. Is that a reason why Yorkshire should want its own trade deals?
So Scotland wont be looking deals then ?
Scotland will use its new-found sovereignty wisely by becoming a full member of the EU.
Given over a third of SNP voters voted Leave as did over a third of Scots as a whole a hypothetical independent Scotland might just join Norway and Iceland in the EEA or EFTA rather than the full EU
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
There are practical consequences to a refusal to countenance any kind of political union.
Where do you want the customs border?
- Between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland - Between Northern Ireland and Great Britain
The Commons has already voted down staying in the Customs Union and Single Market, the latter by a 200 vote majority
Interesting, but how many MP's actually knew anything about the problems in leaving the EU, probably a couple of dozen "Traitors" out of the 650. Hard way to learn the actuality from the fantasy for so many!
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For decisive.
The vast majority of global growthEU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what leave?
Obviously trade will grow faster with developing economies rather than developed ones. But it will take decades, if not centuries, for it to be supplanted as our biggest export destination.
Them’s the facts.
I communications.
I would look for services deals with China, Brazil, India, the US, Nigeria and Vietnam, and existing common law countries.
And it won’t take “centuries”, either. It will take about 20-30 years at most. And non-EU countries are already our biggest export destination.
Sorry.
And for the record I’m not arguing for a “bad” Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s.
The idea that the single market will not be our biggest export destination in 20 years is for the fairies - unless we really do crash out.
Good luck with those services FTAs!
Interesting how you refer to 'deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s' which saw manufacturing output rise but don't mention the actual deindustrialisation between 1997 and 2010.
And there was a higher proportion of high-wage manufacturing jobs being lost in that decade than in the 80s and 90s.
My point was about the communities that were devastated by deindustrialisation. It was the decline of heavy industry - which did take place largely between 1980 and 2000 - which saw countless communities ravaged because there was nothing to take its place. If there are no plans in place to replace lost jobs it will happen again.
The Lords are overriding a manifesto commitment from a sitting government in blatant overruling of the British constitution. May should add another 100 peers.
Now let us see whether the Anglo-French Dominic Grieve continues to serve his other country.
Quite. I believe the lords tried to break the Salisbury Doctrine with Blair. He put them well and truly in their box.
Blair had a majority of 179. May has a majority of minus 10. Bit of a difference.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For decisive.
The vast majority of global growthEU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what leave?
Obviously trade will grow faster with developing economies rather than developed ones. But it will take decades, if not centuries, for it to be supplanted as our biggest export destination.
Them’s the facts.
I communications.
I would look for services deals with China, Brazil, India, the US, Nigeria and Vietnam, and existing common law countries.
And it won’t take “centuries”, either. It will take about 20-30 years at most. And non-EU countries are already our biggest export destination.
Sorry.
And for the record I’m not arguing for a “bad” Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s.
The idea that the single market will not be our biggest export destination in 20 years is for the fairies - unless we really do crash out.
Good luck with those services FTAs!
Interesting how you refer to 'deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s' which saw manufacturing output rise but don't mention the actual deindustrialisation between 1997 and 2010.
And there was a higher proportion of high-wage manufacturing jobs being lost in that decade than in the 80s and 90s.
My point was about the communities that were devastated by deindustrialisation. It was the decline of heavy industry - which did take place largely between 1980 and 2000 - which saw countless communities ravaged because there was nothing to take its place. If there are no plans in place to replace lost jobs it will happen again.
The Commons has already voted down staying in the Customs Union and Single Market, the latter by a 200 vote majority
The House of Lords and Dominic Grieve will own a shit Brexit.
One of the most ill-judged interventions in decades.
You are seriously overestimating the degree to which anyone cares or is noticing what is going on. The government will own whatever Brexit we manage to negotiate.
Ain't no one going to be saying "Ooh those Lords and that Dominic Grieve, what are they like? Look at the Brexit they have given us."
The Commons has already voted down staying in the Customs Union and Single Market, the latter by a 200 vote majority
Interesting, but how many MP's actually knew anything about the problems in leaving the EU, probably a couple of dozen "Traitors" out of the 650. Hard way to learn the actuality from the fantasy for so many!
Labour MPs like Caroline Flint know it is political suicide for them to back free movement and the EEA in their very Leave seats
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For decisive.
The vast majority of global growthEU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what leave?
Obviously trade will grow faster with developing economies rather than developed ones. But it will take decades, if not centuries, for it to be supplanted as our biggest export destination.
Them’s the facts.
I communications.
I would look for services deals with China, Brazil, India, the US, Nigeria and Vietnam, and existing common law countries.
And it won’t take “centuries”, either. It will take about 20-30 years at most. And non-EU countries are already our biggest export destination.
Sorry.
And for the record I’m not arguing for a “bad” Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s.
The idea that the single market will not be our biggest export destination in 20 years is for the fairies - unless we really do crash out.
Good luck with those services FTAs!
Interesting how you refer to 'deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s' which saw manufacturing output rise but don't mention the actual deindustrialisation between 1997 and 2010.
And there was a higher proportion of high-wage manufacturing jobs being lost in that decade than in the 80s and 90s.
My point was about the communities that were devastated by deindustrialisation. It was the decline of heavy industry - which did take place largely between 1980 and 2000 - which saw countless communities ravaged because there was nothing to take its place. If there are no plans in place to replace lost jobs it will happen again.
The evidence says otherwise.
Please share it. I would love to be put right. Cheers.
The vast majority of global growth in future will come from outside the EU.
That argument becomes even more potent if you draw the boundary smaller. Just think how much global growth will be outside the UK. Is that a reason why Yorkshire should want its own trade deals?
So Scotland wont be looking deals then ?
Scotland will use its new-found sovereignty wisely by becoming a full member of the EU.
Given over a third of SNP voters voted Leave as did over a third of Scots as a whole a hypothetical independent Scotland might just join Norway and Iceland in the EEA or EFTA rather than the full EU
The SNP have more or less totally burned their bridges with Spain now, so with the best will in the world rapid membership of the EU is off the table.
People keep saying this, but it’s bollocks. There’s a far greater British diaspora in NZ, Australia and Canada, and both nations have or are looking to conclude free trade deals with both the UK and EU.
Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.
Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For heavy machinery and manufacture it
The vast majority of global growthEU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what leave?
Obviously trade will grow faster with developing economies rather than developed ones. But it will take decades, if not centuries, for it to be supplanted as our biggest export destination.
Them’s the facts.
I love your use of ‘high wage’ there, as if services jobs aren’t. Consultancy, engineering and design, financial services and insurance, legal services, education, new software and technology, retail, media and communications.
I would look for services deals with China, Brazil, India, the US, Nigeria and Vietnam, and existing common law countries.
And it won’t take “centuries”, either. It will take about 20-30 years at most. And non-EU countries are already our biggest export destination.
Sorry.
And for the record I’m not arguing for a “bad” Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The point about high wage manufacturing jobs is that they tend to be concentrated in areas where high wage services jobs are unlikely to be created. You’re not going to see many redundant car workers in Sundetland become consultants or lawyers. Should these factories close the impact on whole communities will be big and longlasting - see deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s.
The idea that the single market will not be our biggest export destination in 20 years is for the fairies - unless we really do crash out.
Good luck with those services FTAs!
I’m afraid it really isn’t for the fairies. It’s absolutely a reality and happening already.
Assuming both you and I are alive in 20 years, do you want an inflation adjusted bet of £100 on that?
The vast majority of global growth in future will come from outside the EU.
That argument becomes even more potent if you draw the boundary smaller. Just think how much global growth will be outside the UK. Is that a reason why Yorkshire should want its own trade deals?
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For decisive.
The vast majority of global growthEU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what leave?
Obviously trade will grow faster with developing economies rather than developed ones. But it will take decades, if not centuries, for it to be supplanted as our biggest export destination.
Them’s the facts.
I communications.
I would look for services deals with China, Brazil, India, the US, Nigeria and Vietnam, and existing common law countries.
And it won’t take “centuries”, either. It will take about 20-30 years at most. And non-EU countries are already our biggest export destination.
Sorry.
And for the record I’m not arguing for a “bad” Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s.
The idea that the single market will not be our biggest export destination in 20 years is for the fairies - unless we really do crash out.
Good luck with those services FTAs!
Interesting how you refer to 'deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s' which saw manufacturing output rise but don't mention the actual deindustrialisation between 1997 and 2010.
And there was a higher proportion of high-wage manufacturing jobs being lost in that decade than in the 80s and 90s.
My point was about the communities that were devastated by deindustrialisation. It was the decline of heavy industry - which did take place largely between 1980 and 2000 - which saw countless communities ravaged because there was nothing to take its place. If there are no plans in place to replace lost jobs it will happen again.
The evidence says otherwise.
Please share it. I would love to be put right. Cheers.
Seconded. It certainly looks, on the ground, as tholiugh SO’s opinion is justified. Generally speaking, anyway.
Just think, if England hadn't been defeated in the 1970 World Cup we might not be leaving the EU now... As Heath might never have become PM in the 1970 UK General Election and so we might never have joined the EEC in the first place...
I think we would . Harold Wilson was already negotiating to gain entry following De Gaulle's resignation in 1969.
It is really hard to see how the UK could have stayed out. The mistake was not getting in at the beginning.
The mistake was joining.
A mistake was not stopping the moves to federalism in the late 1980s and, if the writing really was on the wall, not carving out the UK as an associate to the EU in Maastricht, rather than a full member of it.
I suspect that it started to go wrong, especially for the UK, when the East European countries were admitted as full members instead of as ‘associates’ while their economies got up to speed.
For the mass of votes against, yes. But it’s no coincidence that both UKIP and the eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party both had their roots in the late 1980s.
If I had to pick a particular year, I’d pick 1988.
Hmm. Interesting thought. When the Soviet Union was collapsing and just before the Wall came down.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For decisive.
The vast majority of global growthEU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what leave?
Obviously trade will grow faster with developing economies rather than developed ones. But it will take decades, if not centuries, for it to be supplanted as our biggest export destination.
Them’s the facts.
I communications.
I would look for services deals with China, Brazil, India, the US, Nigeria and Vietnam, and existing common law countries.
And it won’t take “centuries”, either. It will take about 20-30 years at most. And non-EU countries are already our biggest export destination.
Sorry.
And for the record I’m not arguing for a “bad” Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s.
The idea that the single market will not be our biggest export destination in 20 years is for the fairies - unless we really do crash out.
Good luck with those services FTAs!
Interesting how you refer to 'deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s' which saw manufacturing output rise but don't mention the actual deindustrialisation between 1997 and 2010.
And there was a higher proportion of high-wage manufacturing jobs being lost in that decade than in the 80s and 90s.
My point was about the communities that were devastated by deindustrialisation. It was the decline of heavy industry - which did take place largely between 1980 and 2000 - which saw countless communities ravaged because there was nothing to take its place. If there are no plans in place to replace lost jobs it will happen again.
The evidence says otherwise.
Please share it. I would love to be put right. Cheers.
It was just shared with you in that post, you refused to acknowledge it.
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
There are practical consequences to a refusal to countenance any kind of political union.
Where do you want the customs border?
- Between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland - Between Northern Ireland and Great Britain
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That them.
For decisive.
The vast majority of global growthEU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what leave?
Obviously destination.
Them’s the facts.
I communications.
I countries.
And it won’t take “centuries”, either. It will take about 20-30 years at most. And non-EU countries are already our biggest export destination.
Sorry.
And for the record I’m not arguing for a “bad” Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s.
The idea that the single market will not be our biggest export destination in 20 years is for the fairies - unless we really do crash out.
Good luck with those services FTAs!
Interesting how you refer to 'deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s' which saw manufacturing output rise but don't mention the actual deindustrialisation between 1997 and 2010.
And there was a higher proportion of high-wage manufacturing jobs being lost in that decade than in the 80s and 90s.
My point was about the communities that were devastated by deindustrialisation. It was the decline of heavy industry - which did take place largely between 1980 and 2000 - which saw countless communities ravaged because there was nothing to take its place. If there are no plans in place to replace lost jobs it will happen again.
The evidence says otherwise.
Please share it. I would love to be put right. Cheers.
It was just shared with you in that post, you refused to acknowledge it.
Got it - you are deflecting. The simple fact is that the decline of heavy industry - which largely took place between 1980 and 2000 - led to the break-up of huge numbers of communities. We continue to live with the consequences today. If you wish to dismiss that, so be it.
Colour me sceptical on legalising recreational use of cannabis.
Yes, I know the war on it has been lost. Yes, I know it can have some medicinal applications. But it also has some serious mental health side effects for a minority of younger users, I’ve seen it turn friends of mine into absolute paranoid maniacs and I don’t want all our parks, and public areas stinking of ganja, which is a more sickly sweet and pervasive smell even compared to tobacco.
So, I remain to be convinced. Personally, I can’t stand the stuff and think both banning and legalising it has negative social effects, just a different mix on each side.
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
There are practical consequences to a refusal to countenance any kind of political union.
Where do you want the customs border?
- Between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland - Between Northern Ireland and Great Britain
Between the ROI and the EU.
I don't see why the UK should be forced into a political union because the Irish get angry over a few video cameras and car parks.
People keep saying this, but it’s bollocks. There’s a far greater British diaspora in NZ, Australia and Canada, and both nations have or are looking to conclude free trade deals with both the UK and EU.
Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.
Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For heavy machinery and manufacture it
The vast majority of global growthEU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what leave?
Obviously trade will grow faster with developing economies rather than developed ones. But it will take decades, if not centuries, for it to be supplanted as our biggest export destination.
Them’s the facts.
I communications.
I would look for services deals with China, Brazil, India, the US, Nigeria and Vietnam, and existing common law countries.
And it won’t take “centuries”, either. It will take about 20-30 years at most. And non-EU countries are already our biggest export destination.
Sorry.
And for the record I’m not arguing for a “bad” Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The point about high wage manufacturing jobs is that they tend to be concentrated in areas where high wage services jobs are unlikely to be created. You’re not going to see many redundant car workers in Sundetland become consultants or lawyers. Should these factories close the impact on whole communities will be big and longlasting - see deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s.
The idea that the single market will not be our biggest export destination in 20 years is for the fairies - unless we really do crash out.
Good luck with those services FTAs!
I’m afraid it really isn’t for the fairies. It’s absolutely a reality and happening already.
Assuming both you and I are alive in 20 years, do you want an inflation adjusted bet of £100 on that?
Happily - though I do expect to be dead. However, I'd be more interested to know where you think we'll be trading more with in 2038 than the single market.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For decisive.
The vast majority of global growthEU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what leave?
Obviously trade will grow faster with developing economies rather than developed ones. But it will take decades, if not centuries, for it to be supplanted as our biggest export destination.
Them’s the facts.
I communications.
I would look for services deals with China, Brazil, India, the US, Nigeria and Vietnam, and existing common law countries.
And it won’t take “centuries”, either. It will take about 20-30 years at most. And non-EU countries are already our biggest export destination.
Sorry.
And for the record I’m not arguing for a “bad” Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s.
The idea that the single market will not be our biggest export destination in 20 years is for the fairies - unless we really do crash out.
Good luck with those services FTAs!
Interesting how you refer to 'deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s' which saw manufacturing output rise but don't mention the actual deindustrialisation between 1997 and 2010.
And there was a higher proportion of high-wage manufacturing jobs being lost in that decade than in the 80s and 90s.
My point was about the communities that were devastated by deindustrialisation. It was the decline of heavy industry - which did take place largely between 1980 and 2000 - which saw countless communities ravaged because there was nothing to take its place. If there are no plans in place to replace lost jobs it will happen again.
The evidence says otherwise.
Err your chart say more industrial jobs were lost between 1980 and 1997 than after 1997.
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
There are practical consequences to a refusal to countenance any kind of political union.
Where do you want the customs border?
- Between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland - Between Northern Ireland and Great Britain
Between the ROI and the EU.
I don't see why the UK should be forced into a political union because the Irish get angry over a few video cameras and car parks.
Surely what you really mean is you don't see why England should be forced into a political union, in which case you should be in favour of breaking up the UK.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For decisive.
The vast majority of global growthEU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what leave?
Obviously destination.
Them’s the facts.
I communications.
I countries.
And destination.
Sorry.
And for the record I’m not arguing for a “bad” Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s.
The idea that the single market will not be our biggest export destination in 20 years is for the fairies - unless we really do crash out.
Good luck with those services FTAs!
Interesting how you refer to 'deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s' which saw manufacturing output rise but don't mention the actual deindustrialisation between 1997 and 2010.
And there was a higher proportion of high-wage manufacturing jobs being lost in that decade than in the 80s and 90s.
My point was about the communities that were devastated by deindustrialisation. It was the decline of heavy industry - which did take place largely between 1980 and 2000 - which saw countless communities ravaged because there was nothing to take its place. If there are no plans in place to replace lost jobs it will happen again.
The evidence says otherwise.
Err your chart say more industrial jobs were lost between 1980 and 1997 than after 1997.
Yep, looking at the data supplied, unless I am reading it wrong it says that there were 6.541 million jobs in manufacturing in 1979, 3.959 in 1997 and 2.565 million in 2010. Between 1980 and 2000, 2.637 million jobs were lost. Since then, another 1.166 have gone.
Comments
I was agnostic about the Lords. Slightly against the principle but not enough to make a fuss. However, they are takin the piss now. Get rid of the lot, says I.
latest poll says in a split between the CSU and CDU the CSU would be on 18% while Merkel's CDU would be on 22%. This would make the CSU the second strongest party in Germany, probably picking up soft AfD votes.
www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/cdu-csu-fallen-unter-30-prozent-15647325.html
The HoL may need altering, but getting rid of it may cause far more problems than the current system.
I would look for services deals with China, Brazil, India, the US, Nigeria and Vietnam, and existing common law countries.
And it won’t take “centuries”, either. It will take about 20-30 years at most. And non-EU countries are already our biggest export destination.
Sorry.
And for the record I’m not arguing for a “bad” Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
There's a difference between an amendment and a 180 degree handbrake turn. The instigators are happy to admit they aim to stop the government from implementing the referendum result.
From a manufacturing perspective I cant see supply chains being the key issue as the trend has been for more models based on shorter production runs. To me it's more about skills, R&D and encouraging investment by suppliers.
I think it will on the first (because it’s in its direct interests to do so) but wants to constrain us on the second.
I just don’t know where the negotiation will end up.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44526156
And by someone who is competent.
Which would rule out the audit companies.
There is currently plenty of drafting and discussing going on which will result in as you say an impenetrable agreement many miles long with few gotcha paragraphs.
This seems an entirely normal line of thought. So we should not be surprised to see the unhinged Brexiteers complaining that the government should have been allowed to get its way through deceit and threatening the House of Lords with abolition for having the temerity to give the Commons a fair opportunity to consider the matter.
Hope so !!
Did you enjoy (or endure) the football?
.................................................................................
It was poor and rather funny with the penalty and I doubt it heralds and all conquering England march to the final'
Looking at the draw after Germany lost we might be better off going through runners up, if we win the group we likely face Germany or Brazil in the quarter finals as runners up we likely face Mexico (though Mexico could keep up their form of course)
England were mediocre at best, toiled all second half and get lucky 91st minute gift to win. When they come up against a real team like Spain or Portugal they will get humped.
The idea that the single market will not be our biggest export destination in 20 years is for the fairies - unless we really do crash out.
Good luck with those services FTAs!
'Call me Mr President’: Emmanuel Macron scolds teenager
Macron told off a teenager during visit to Mont Valerian fort where French resistance members were executed.
Did you enjoy (or endure) the football?
.................................................................................
It was poor and rather funny with the penalty and I doubt it heralds and all conquering England march to the final'
Looking at the draw after Germany lost we might be better off going through runners up, if we win the group we likely face Germany or Brazil in the quarter finals as runners up we likely face Mexico (though Mexico could keep up their form of course)
England were mediocre at best, toiled all second half and get lucky 91st minute gift to win. When they come up against a real team like Spain or Portugal they will get humped.'
England drew 2 all with Spain just two years ago
Be careful what you wish for.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/44530950
"I’m having lunch with Hailsham on Sunday (it’s his golden wedding anniversary), that’s going to be fun."
While you're there, give him a kick in the bollocks from me, please.
On the deceit issue we were not there but several MPs have stated or leaked that they did not get what they were promised. The alternative to May deceiving them is they were too stupid to realise what she meant. Even if that is true their anger remains the same.
Given the rebel's anger the Lords have some cause at least to send this one back - there is a chance the Commons will change its mind. They can't do that endlessly, but whatever the motives of Hailsham the Moat Man I think it not that unreasonable to try one more time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raffles,_the_Gentleman_Thug
In addition, as the meeting was an absolute rushed fudge, it's perfectly possible that the 'truth' lies somewhere inbetween, and that the meeting was a real dog's dinner.
Given May's political skills, I'd say it was more chaos than planned.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/timeseries/k22a/diop
Nor was that the result of the 2008 recession either - manufacturing employment fell by a third in the decade after 1997.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/jwr7/lms
And there was a higher proportion of high-wage manufacturing jobs being lost in that decade than in the 80s and 90s.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44529149
.................................................................................
It was poor and rather funny with the penalty and I doubt it heralds and all conquering England march to the final'
Looking at the draw after Germany lost we might be better off going through runners up, if we win the group we likely face Germany or Brazil in the quarter finals as runners up we likely face Mexico (though Mexico could keep up their form of course)
England were mediocre at best, toiled all second half and get lucky 91st minute gift to win. When they come up against a real team like Spain or Portugal they will get humped.'
England drew 2 all with Spain just two years ago You trolling now Alan
Going back again on one point is not enough piss taking , yet, to stir up so much anger
.................................................................................
It was poor and rather funny with the penalty and I doubt it heralds and all conquering England march to the final'
Looking at the draw after Germany lost we might be better off going through runners up, if we win the group we likely face Germany or Brazil in the quarter finals as runners up we likely face Mexico (though Mexico could keep up their form of course)
England were mediocre at best, toiled all second half and get lucky 91st minute gift to win. When they come up against a real team like Spain or Portugal they will get humped.'
England drew 2 all with Spain just two years ago You trolling now Alan
well somebody has to keep Billy Boy Glenn amused
it's my contribution to care in the community
Where do you want the customs border?
- Between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland
- Between Northern Ireland and Great Britain
One of the most ill-judged interventions in decades.
Not traitors, or saboteurs, but cowards.
Ain't no one going to be saying "Ooh those Lords and that Dominic Grieve, what are they like? Look at the Brexit they have given us."
Assuming both you and I are alive in 20 years, do you want an inflation adjusted bet of £100 on that?
Yes, I know the war on it has been lost. Yes, I know it can have some medicinal applications. But it also has some serious mental health side effects for a minority of younger users, I’ve seen it turn friends of mine into absolute paranoid maniacs and I don’t want all our parks, and public areas stinking of ganja, which is a more sickly sweet and pervasive smell even compared to tobacco.
So, I remain to be convinced. Personally, I can’t stand the stuff and think both banning and legalising it has negative social effects, just a different mix on each side.
https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1008726533832429568
https://twitter.com/lordashcroft/status/1008992236636397569?s=21
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/jwr7/lms