Nicola Sturgeon is getting herself into big trouble shielding unionist civil servants who tried to stitch up Alex Salmond. She seems to have lost the plot for feminism support. Why the two unionist turkeys have not been sacked is crazy. She may be job hunting if she does not watch.
Any sign of party rumblings of discontent at her?
Not openly for sure except for usual suspects like Sillars, but press etc bigging it up and Salmond will turn over every stone. Hard to see why she has supported these two chancers, given the women were pushed into getting ready to complain and then they changed the rules to fit the complaints before getting them to submit complaints. Bungling amateurs.
Morning Malc - where do you think all this controversy is going for Nicola Sturgeon and will she survive
Morning G, I have to say I have my doubts about her , too timid, too left wing and too feminist. I personally don't see her as being a patch on Alex S. Think Mike Russel or Angus Robertson would be much better. However I cannot see there ever being any evidence/charges against Salmond so will just be a case of whether she can stick it out whilst Police Scotland take a year or two to finish a 5 minute investigation. She certainly seems to be error prone in her judgment.
I think the SNP has a choice to a certain extent of whether it wants to be a revolutionary movement or the lightly nationalist establishment party of power. The Fianna Fáil of Scotland. Salmond seemed ambiguous; Sturgeon seems to favour the latter. Mrs Sturgeon has the advantage over any potential rivals of being the person Central Casting would come up with when tasked with finding the representative of Middle Scotland. It will take a lot to shift her.
Otoh this is yet another battle in the geopolitical war between light and dark. Apparently.
You seem to be assuming TMay wouldn't let parliament pass a deal vs remain referendum. I don't know how you'd know that - nobody seems to know what TMay will do if/when her deal is defeated. I'm not sure TMay knows.
If there's a referendum and Remain wins then she can rule until 2027.
At this stage one can obviously be certain of practically nothing. However, I very much doubt if Parliament, following the anticipated crushing defeat for the Deal, would try to put it to the people.
Yes that would be silly, but absent parliament manning up (and womanning up) and just Remaining as the largest group within it clearly wants to do, what else would go up against remain in a referendum? It would by even more hypocritical and pointless to include no deal. I don't see that other Brexit options have the justification of inclusion a the deal, given the whinging that people did not know what they were voting for last time, and they would be springing options before the public which only anoraks will be clear about.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
You are the one totally missing the point. If we were all confident the FTA would be in effect then there would be no problem. Nobody is objecting that strenuously to a transition. It is the permanent backstop that is the problem and there is no time limit on that.
You and Mr Nabavi claim the EU don't want the backstop to be permanent but given the upset it is causing here they could resolve that by not making it permanent. They haven't. Judge by deeds not words and the deeds are that they have moved heaven and earth to screw out of us a permanent backstop from which there is no time limit and no unilateral escape.
You do know the EU didn't want the backstop to apply to the whole of the UK, don't you? And that they view this as "cherrypicking" because we get full customs alignment totally for free, and with no free movement on people on top?
Customs alignment isn't tied to free movement. Turkey has customs alignment but no free movement.
I voted to end customs alignment. Even EFTA would achieve that but the backstop doesn't.
And, that will come, once we've negotiated a final FTA.
It's very obvious it's a red line for this Conservative Government.
That is a very interesting post and goes some way to explaining the mystery that is the psyche of a Leaver. What is it that against the certainty that our society will deteriorate both socially and economically makes them want to leave? It's that it is a visceral fear and only visible to those who feel it.
It is called "Maintaining privilege" Roger. Those on top do not like competition and, given the display of "talent" from prominent Leavers, I would say that they have plenty to be worried about.
What remainers fail to understand is that "competition" in this case is just a race to the bottom. It is the old criticism of neo-liberal economics.
Unbridled competition depresses wages at the low end of the market and increases the gap between rich and poor. The rich with skills in high demand are highly mobile and can command a high salary wherever they go, while those without the requisite skills are left competing for low paid jobs, the worst houses, the bare minimum schools.
More importantly it is about opportunities - a middle class public schoolboy born in the South East will have access to far more opportunities than a working class kid born in Darlington and educated in the local comp.
Exposing our working class to untrammelled competition from the workers of much poorer countries in the form of freedom of movement may sound like a good idea from a macroeconomic perspective, but is a very poor idea from the perspective of those working class people who are left behind.
It is not about "maintaining privilege". Most of the people who voted to leave the EU would laugh in your smug, elitist face if you had the temerity to call them "privileged".
That is an argument but the post Bev was ultimately replying to was one from Casino Royal which said something altogether different. He seemed to be calling for the return of the old school tie and value system most of us hardly remember and if we do it's with some embarrassment
The political agenda is being driven by far too many elderly Tories who can't let go of the past, as it is.
Interesting article. Shame there weren’t more comments on topic. I was interested in the last paragraph because all the articles I’ve read on Italy since the new Gov was formed have been about them backing off a confrontation with the EU over the size of the fiscal deficit they originally wanted to run which, if true, will limit the ability of the new Gov on their agenda.
Italy has had almost as many financial crises as a Eurozone member as Greece. Stupid to have a shared currency but no fiscal redistribution or sharing of risk. Not sure the current economic problems will make the problems in the Eurozone worse though. Italy has a very strong economy in the north and whilst its national debt to GDP is sky high, it’s been a lot more successful than we have in keeping the debt under control and not rocketing further.
Incidentally, allowing the EU a de facto veto over who the new Gov appointed as a finance minister is shocking regardless of the individuals abilities. Typifies why Britain was right to vote Leave.
If we do have a GE, the Labour manifesto writer is going to have one hell of a time concocting a convoluted form of words on Brexit that means different things depending who is reading.
Good luck.
William was arguing the last one didn't back Brexit (not Tory Brexit, but Brexit generally) even though it talked about accepting the referendum result and negotiating and so on, so just reuse that, apparently people get Remain support out of it.
That is a very interesting post and goes some way to explaining the mystery that is the psyche of a Leaver. What is it that against the certainty that our society will deteriorate both socially and economically makes them want to leave? It's that it is a visceral fear and only visible to those who feel it.
It is called "Maintaining privilege" Roger. Those on top do not like competition and, given the display of "talent" from prominent Leavers, I would say that they have plenty to be worried about.
What remainers fail to understand is that "competition" in this case is just a race to the bottom. It is the old criticism of neo-liberal economics.
Unbridled competition depresses wages at the low end of the market and increases the gap between rich and poor. The rich with skills in high demand are highly mobile and can command a high salary wherever they go, while those without the requisite skills are left competing for low paid jobs, the worst houses, the bare minimum schools.
More importantly it is about opportunities - a middle class public schoolboy born in the South East will have access to far more opportunities than a working class kid born in Darlington and educated in the local comp.
Exposing our working class to untrammelled competition from the workers of much poorer countries in the form of freedom of movement may sound like a good idea from a macroeconomic perspective, but is a very poor idea from the perspective of those working class people who are left behind.
It is not about "maintaining privilege". Most of the people who voted to leave the EU would laugh in your smug, elitist face if you had the temerity to call them "privileged".
That is an argument but the post Bev was ultimately replying to was one from Casino Royal which said something altogether different. He seemed to be calling for the return of the old school tie and value system most of us hardly remember and if we do it's with some embarrassment
The political agenda is being driven by far too many elderly Tories who can't let go of the past, as it is.
At present the agenda seems to be being driven by remainers who want to turn the clock back to 2015. They are certainly in the ascendant.
You seem to be assuming TMay wouldn't let parliament pass a deal vs remain referendum. I don't know how you'd know that - nobody seems to know what TMay will do if/when her deal is defeated. I'm not sure TMay knows.
If there's a referendum and Remain wins then she can rule until 2027.
At this stage one can obviously be certain of practically nothing. However, I very much doubt if Parliament, following the anticipated crushing defeat for the Deal, would try to put it to the people. There might not be a referendum if the cross-party alliance takes control of proceedings (they might decide that the least impractical option is revocation,) but if there is then it'd probably be BINO (Norway+CU, or something very like it, assuming that this were to be offered by the EU) versus Remain.
Therefore, if the reports in the Sunday Times are anything like accurate, and the Tory Hard Remainer faction intends to seize control of the Parliamentary machinery with the co-operation of Bercow and leading Opposition figures, then May could have nothing left to lose by resigning as Prime Minister.
If the Tory party were then to stick together as a unit on confidence then, given the position of the DUP, an alternative Government could not be formed and a General Election would follow, which would most likely function as a proxy referendum on May's Deal versus Labour's unicorn renegotiation strategy. If, however, the Tory Hard Remainers followed their logic and did a deal with the Opposition (whether to form some kind of unity Government, or to put Corbyn into office) then the resultant administration would have no agenda other than resolving Brexit, and after its business was done there would, again, have to be a General Election - this time contested by a Conservative Party which would, by then, have ejected the Grieve-Soubry wing from its orbit, and would almost certainly be led by a Leaver. Again, that would function as a proxy referendum - this time, with the Tories advocating a new plan for a Hard Brexit and Labour the prevailing status quo at that time (Remain, or its own Withdrawal Agreement.)
The political situation is so volatile that it's impossible to predict who would do best in a General Election under either of those circumstances.
The one thing that is certain once the deal fails to pass is that Labour will force a vote of no confidence in the Gov. Difficult to see how the ultra Remain faction of Grieve, Soubry, Greening etc can rally behind May to defeat whilst retaining any credibility.
Not sure how that no confidence motion would affect the timetable of the Grieve/Bercow amendment either.
The Tories won’t want to go into that General Election with May still as leader.
That is a very interesting post and goes some way to explaining the mystery that is the psyche of a Leaver. What is it that against the certainty that our society will deteriorate both socially and economically makes them want to leave? It's that it is a visceral fear and only visible to those who feel it.
It is called "Maintaining privilege" Roger. Those on top do not like competition and, given the display of "talent" from prominent Leavers, I would say that they have plenty to be worried about.
What remainers fail to understand is that "competition" in this case is just a race to the bottom. It is the old criticism of neo-liberal economics.
Unbridled competition depresses wages at the low end of the market and increases the gap between rich and poor. The rich with skills in high demand are highly mobile and can command a high salary wherever they go, while those without the requisite skills are left competing for low paid jobs, the worst houses, the bare minimum schools.
More importantly it is about opportunities - a middle class public schoolboy born in the South East will have access to far more opportunities than a working class kid born in Darlington and educated in the local comp.
Exposing our working class to untrammelled competition from the workers of much poorer countries in the form of freedom of movement may sound like a good idea from a macroeconomic perspective, but is a very poor idea from the perspective of those working class people who are left behind.
It is not about "maintaining privilege". Most of the people who voted to leave the EU would laugh in your smug, elitist face if you had the temerity to call them "privileged".
That is an argument but the post Bev was ultimately replying to was one from Casino Royal which said something altogether different. He seemed to be calling for the return of the old school tie and value system most of us hardly remember and if we do it's with some embarrassment
The political agenda is being driven by far too many elderly Tories who can't let go of the past, as it is.
So those of a certain age should be denied the vote in your view ?
I see the commentariat are getting excited about Corbyn's comments regarding a referendum. The man is a bloody genius, able to maintain his clear skepticism about Europe and yet likely still get swept into power this year or next on the back of remainer votes.
Nicola Sturgeon is getting herself into big trouble shielding unionist civil servants who tried to stitch up Alex Salmond. She seems to have lost the plot for feminism support. Why the two unionist turkeys have not been sacked is crazy. She may be job hunting if she does not watch.
Any sign of party rumblings of discontent at her?
Not openly for sure except for usual suspects like Sillars, but press etc bigging it up and Salmond will turn over every stone. Hard to see why she has supported these two chancers, given the women were pushed into getting ready to complain and then they changed the rules to fit the complaints before getting them to submit complaints. Bungling amateurs.
Morning Malc - where do you think all this controversy is going for Nicola Sturgeon and will she survive
Morning G, I have to say I have my doubts about her , too timid, too left wing and too feminist. I personally don't see her as being a patch on Alex S. Think Mike Russel or Angus Robertson would be much better. However I cannot see there ever being any evidence/charges against Salmond so will just be a case of whether she can stick it out whilst Police Scotland take a year or two to finish a 5 minute investigation. She certainly seems to be error prone in her judgment.
I think the SNP has a choice to a certain extent of whether it wants to be a revolutionary movement or the lightly nationalist establishment party of power. The Fianna Fáil of Scotland. Salmond seemed ambiguous; Sturgeon seems to favour the latter. Mrs Sturgeon has the advantage over any potential rivals of being the person Central Casting would come up with when tasked with finding the representative of Middle Scotland. It will take a lot to shift her.
Otoh this is yet another battle in the geopolitical war between light and dark. Apparently.
Hello! We'd like to sign a trade deal with you! What, we just violated the Vienna Convention when we denounced our agreement with the EU27 countries? Never mind that! We'd never do that to you! Hello? Hello?
Paying £ 39bn without the certainty of an acceptable trade would be crass stupidity especially as HoL’s view on the Vienna convention is somewhat different to yours.
It is called "Maintaining privilege" Roger. Those on top do not like competition and, given the display of "talent" from prominent Leavers, I would say that they have plenty to be worried about.
What remainers fail to understand is that "competition" in this case is just a race to the bottom. It is the old criticism of neo-liberal economics.
Unbridled competition depresses wages at the low end of the market and increases the gap between rich and poor. The rich with skills in high demand are highly mobile and can command a high salary wherever they go, while those without the requisite skills are left competing for low paid jobs, the worst houses, the bare minimum schools.
More importantly it is about opportunities - a middle class public schoolboy born in the South East will have access to far more opportunities than a working class kid born in Darlington and educated in the local comp.
Exposing our working class to untrammelled competition from the workers of much poorer countries in the form of freedom of movement may sound like a good idea from a macroeconomic perspective, but is a very poor idea from the perspective of those working class people who are left behind.
It is not about "maintaining privilege". Most of the people who voted to leave the EU would laugh in your smug, elitist face if you had the temerity to call them "privileged".
That is an argument but the post Bev was ultimately replying to was one from Casino Royal which said something altogether different. He seemed to be calling for the return of the old school tie and value system most of us hardly remember and if we do it's with some embarrassment
Hmm, OK. I would argue that while some leavers are privileged (JRM an obvious example) and would like to return us to the days of the old school tie (which definitely still exists, by the way!), by and large the people in power today with the privilege and connections are ardently pro-EU, pro multiculturalism, pro globalisation. See Casino's earlier post about being fired on the spot if you dared to question hegemonic view that multiculturalism is, and always will be, a good thing, under all circumstances.
It relates back to what Black Rook was saying, that when you have a hegemonic group such as this with ideas that cannot be open to compromise (I would be strongly in favour of the liberal but controlled immigration policy BR mentions), you get an equal and opposite reaction in the other direction. In this case, largely from those with no power or privilege of their own.
Won't it be funny if Tory Remainiacs bring down the government, thinking that Labour will stop Brexit only for Jezza to win a big enough majority to conctinue with Leave?
Multi-millionaire Remainer Tories would then have to put up with Jezza taking their savings to the cleaners AND we'd still leave the EU.
As an outsider it all feels a bit odd since it really seems nothing more than a dispute over money, not values, since it is not as though the other lot were against large amounts of barrier being in place were they? Sure, splurging billions more ineffectively is not something I'd back, but IDK, if it were not for the poor workers caught up in this mess it would not be a very interesting story at all.
They had a vox-pop on Vice with some prison guards a couple of days ago. They were really pissed at Trump for the shut-down and them not getting paid this month (which is totally understandable), but asked if they believed a wall was a good idea, they basically said yes.
Won't it be funny if Tory Remainiacs bring down the government, thinking that Labour will stop Brexit only for Jezza to win a big enough majority to conctinue with Leave?
Multi-millionaire Remainer Tories would then have to put up with Jezza taking their savings to the cleaners AND we'd still leave the EU.
#Karma ???
Can't see threm doing it, for exactly that reason. They'll vote down the VONC, in the hope that it enables Corbyn to move on to the referendum, which they'll support.
I guess US voters want the wall... And they'd quite like Mexico to pay for it (as they were promised) ?
Putting aside the facts of what Trump said in his address the other night, auto-cue Trump is quite good at delivering a narrative that if you were on the fence on an issue it would probably convince you to go to his side of the argument.
His address was hard on the crime, the drugs, etc etc etc, minus rally Trump that is all I'm Trump, I am bigly, I am the greatest.
I can see how many Americans could have been swayed by that.
Won't it be funny if Tory Remainiacs bring down the government, thinking that Labour will stop Brexit only for Jezza to win a big enough majority to conctinue with Leave?
Multi-millionaire Remainer Tories would then have to put up with Jezza taking their savings to the cleaners AND we'd still leave the EU.
#Karma ???
Being stolen from by a stupid communist is hilarious, I'm sure.
You seem to be assuming TMay wouldn't let parliament pass a deal vs remain referendum. I don't know how you'd know that - nobody seems to know what TMay will do if/when her deal is defeated. I'm not sure TMay knows.
If there's a referendum and Remain wins then she can rule until 2027.
At this stage one can obviously be certain of practically nothing. However, I very much doubt if Parliament, following the anticipated crushing defeat for the Deal, would try to put it to the people.
Yes that would be silly, but absent parliament manning up (and womanning up) and just Remaining as the largest group within it clearly wants to do, what else would go up against remain in a referendum? It would by even more hypocritical and pointless to include no deal. I don't see that other Brexit options have the justification of inclusion a the deal, given the whinging that people did not know what they were voting for last time, and they would be springing options before the public which only anoraks will be clear about.
They might simply make the referendum about revoking Brexit.
This is the speech where Cameron said: "If we vote to leave then we will leave, there'll not be another renegotiation and another referendum", at 1 min 16 secs.
Hello! We'd like to sign a trade deal with you! What, we just violated the Vienna Convention when we denounced our agreement with the EU27 countries? Never mind that! We'd never do that to you! Hello? Hello?
"We did it so that we COULD sign a trade deal with you...."
Won't it be funny if Tory Remainiacs bring down the government, thinking that Labour will stop Brexit only for Jezza to win a big enough majority to conctinue with Leave?
Multi-millionaire Remainer Tories would then have to put up with Jezza taking their savings to the cleaners AND we'd still leave the EU.
#Karma ???
Can't see them doing it, for exactly that reason. They'll vote down the VONC, in the hope that it enables Corbyn to move on to the referendum, which they'll support.
Which brings us back to other significant problems, especially (a) how do you offer any question other than Deal vs Remain, which would be ridiculous given that Parliament would just have rejected the Deal; and (b) why would Theresa May co-operate with a rebel hijacking of her control over Parliamentary business, especially if it entails a coalition of disaffected MPs trying to re-open negotiations with the EU to secure an alternative agreement whilst she sits helplessly in Number 10?
The Government doesn't have to fall through a VoNC. If May has nothing left to lose then she can pull the plug herself by resigning. Then what do the Tory Hard Remainers do?
This is the speech where Cameron said: "If we vote to leave then we will leave, there'll not be another renegotiation and another referendum", at 1 min 16 secs.
I guess US voters want the wall... And they'd quite like Mexico to pay for it (as they were promised) ?
Putting aside the facts of what Trump said in his address the other night, auto-cue Trump is quite good at delivering a narrative that if you were on the fence on an issue it would probably convince you to go to his side of the argument.
His address was hard on the crime, the drugs, etc etc etc, minus rally Trump that is all I'm Trump, I am bigly, I am the greatest.
I can see how many Americans could have been swayed by that.
Absolutely right. What's more, for the vast majority of history Britain had a close involvement with Europe. It was only in Georgian and Victorian times that that involvement slackened.
That close involvement usually involved swords, cannon or pike. Not sure that is the sort of thing you should be promoting.
Besides, Leave get accused of wanting to take us back to the 1950s. Do you really want to take us back to the 1750s?
You do post some rubbish sometimes.
Apropos of the chances of the youth from the Darlington comp, Sadly, 'twas ever thus, and I suspect will not change as a result of Brexit. In fact the position may well be worsened.
I just find it amusing you think there was some golden age when we were all deeply committed to Europe.
You seem to be assuming TMay wouldn't let parliament pass a deal vs remain referendum. I don't know how you'd know that - nobody seems to know what TMay will do if/when her deal is defeated. I'm not sure TMay knows.
If there's a referendum and Remain wins then she can rule until 2027.
At this stage one can obviously be certain of practically nothing. However, I very much doubt if Parliament, following the anticipated crushing defeat for the Deal, would try to put it to the people.
Yes that would be silly, but absent parliament manning up (and womanning up) and just Remaining as the largest group within it clearly wants to do, what else would go up against remain in a referendum? It would by even more hypocritical and pointless to include no deal. I don't see that other Brexit options have the justification of inclusion a the deal, given the whinging that people did not know what they were voting for last time, and they would be springing options before the public which only anoraks will be clear about.
They might simply make the referendum about revoking Brexit.
Which would also be silly. What if the answer is "No, we want to go ahead?" Then all of that time will have been wasted to get us back to where we are now. Why would the EU27 offer an extension for us to stage a ridiculous pantomime like that?
This is the speech where Cameron said: "If we vote to leave then we will leave, there'll not be another renegotiation and another referendum", at 1 min 16 secs.
On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.
When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?
Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.
The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.
The Italians have also stopped reproducing. Their birthrate has not been above 1.5 since the early 80s. An inverted population pyramid will lead to fairly dire financial consequences, as the Chinese will discover in the 2020s.
Indeed although ironically their immigration should help with that if they can integrate the immigrants and make them productive.
They cannot find jobs for their own educated young, never mind a load of immigrants they don’t want.
And they don’t particularly buy into the whole diversity shtick, either.
What part of the 'diversity shtick' do you find so distateful?
I was describing the Italian view of it.
Personally I don’t particularly want a large group of people moving here who think laws should be based on what their God says amd who think violence in pursuit of that aim is desirable. But having a lot of hard-working skilled educated Africans contributing positively to our society - no problem.
Indeed. People are not goods. And yet the whole premise of FoM is that people are just like goods and services and capital. And they are not. People have wishes and dreams and hopes and aspirations: both those who are already here and those who want to come here. Too much immigration policy is based on the idea that people are as fungible as money. The political and social changes we have seen over the last decade in any number of European countries are a result of that mistaken idea.
All true. But I'm not sure that the truly gross inequalities of opportunity in a globalised world would survive any system at all, short of frontiesr manned by soldiers with machine guns. If you're a young bloke (and initially it's mostly young blokes) with a bit of initiative who happens to be born in, say, Libya, it is simply bonkers to imagine that you'll spend your life selling tins of fruit from a makeshift shop rather than try your damnedest to get to a developed country and earn 20 or 50 times as much. How many lives do you have to waste? And if the system is really hermetically sealed, the jobs will migrate to the developing world, cf. China et al. The refugee crisis arising from wars like Syria is a separate phenomenon on top of that. FOM at least gives a chance that the countries on the EU's border don't end up shouldering nearly all the costs.
There are only two non-chaotic responses to that, and neither are perfect. One is to try to share out the flow of migrants, as the EU is (so far ineffectively) trying to do, while helping creates jobs in the developing world and trying to move domestic markets here upstream. The second, addressing at least the second issue of jobs migrating, is protectionism, cf. Trump.
If you’re a young bloke with a bit of initiative, why wouldn’t you want to make things better for your own country, for your family and neighbours around you? That is, in part, how Europe became such a desirable place to live (and, yes I know, that is a huge generalisation).
And shouldn’t we be helping those young blokes with initiative to improve their own countries?
Because, bluntly, if all those with initiative leave, the countries left behind are not going to get any better, are they? And big population changes to our societies risk ruining the very attractiveness of those societies. At least that’s the fear that some have.
If you’re a young bloke with a bit of initiative, why wouldn’t you want to make things better for your own country, for your family and neighbours around you? That is, in part, how Europe became such a desirable place to live (and, yes I know, that is a huge generalisation).
And shouldn’t we be helping those young blokes with initiative to improve their own countries?
Because, bluntly, if all those with initiative leave, the countries left behind are not going to get any better, are they? And big population changes to our societies risk ruining the very attractiveness of those societies. At least that’s the fear that some have.
Other things being ewqual, I might. But if all I see around me is a small town with nothing much happening except for some roving militia supporting one warlord or another, I probably won't reckon I can do much to tranform the situation myself. And I only have one life to live, so why not try to make it somewhere worthwhile?
But as we've said elsewhere on the thread, the answer to that is serious investment and aid from the Western countries to make staying put a viable and attractive option. If we regard overseas development as an expendable bit of virtue signalling, we shouldn't be surprised if people try to come here.
This is the speech where Cameron said: "If we vote to leave then we will leave, there'll not be another renegotiation and another referendum", at 1 min 16 secs.
Comments
Italy has had almost as many financial crises as a Eurozone member as Greece. Stupid to have a shared currency but no fiscal redistribution or sharing of risk. Not sure the current economic problems will make the problems in the Eurozone worse though. Italy has a very strong economy in the north and whilst its national debt to GDP is sky high, it’s been a lot more successful than we have in keeping the debt under control and not rocketing further.
Incidentally, allowing the EU a de facto veto over who the new Gov appointed as a finance minister is shocking regardless of the individuals abilities. Typifies why Britain was right to vote Leave.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/13/shutdown-americans-blame-trump
Not sure how that no confidence motion would affect the timetable of the Grieve/Bercow amendment either.
The Tories won’t want to go into that General Election with May still as leader.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-46856934
Paying £ 39bn without the certainty of an acceptable trade would be crass stupidity especially as HoL’s view on the Vienna convention is somewhat different to yours.
It relates back to what Black Rook was saying, that when you have a hegemonic group such as this with ideas that cannot be open to compromise (I would be strongly in favour of the liberal but controlled immigration policy BR mentions), you get an equal and opposite reaction in the other direction. In this case, largely from those with no power or privilege of their own.
Multi-millionaire Remainer Tories would then have to put up with Jezza taking their savings to the cleaners AND we'd still leave the EU.
#Karma ???
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/13/shutdown-americans-blame-trump
His address was hard on the crime, the drugs, etc etc etc, minus rally Trump that is all I'm Trump, I am bigly, I am the greatest.
I can see how many Americans could have been swayed by that.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7qZhlrbcB8
The Government doesn't have to fall through a VoNC. If May has nothing left to lose then she can pull the plug herself by resigning. Then what do the Tory Hard Remainers do?
NEW THREAD
Personally I don’t particularly want a large group of people moving here who think laws should be based on what their God says amd who think violence in pursuit of that aim is desirable. But having a lot of hard-working skilled educated Africans contributing positively to our society - no problem.
And shouldn’t we be helping those young blokes with initiative to improve their own countries?
Because, bluntly, if all those with initiative leave, the countries left behind are not going to get any better, are they? And big population changes to our societies risk ruining the very attractiveness of those societies. At least that’s the fear that some have.
But as we've said elsewhere on the thread, the answer to that is serious investment and aid from the Western countries to make staying put a viable and attractive option. If we regard overseas development as an expendable bit of virtue signalling, we shouldn't be surprised if people try to come here.