Not really. If the seats Con lose in nice middle-class neighbourhoods in the South-East are outweighed by those they gain in rufty-tufty working-class neighbourhoods in the North/Midlands, then it's to Cons benefit
Yes. The Conservative Party led by a colossal lump of born-to-rule privilege by the name of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, with a supporting cast of more right wing reactionaries than you can shake a stick at, are hoping to - likely will - surf to power on the back of working class votes.
You couldn't make it up.
Agree. How did it come to this whereby the Labour Party has alienated what it once thought to be its core vote?
Amongst other things, this will now also be the election of Sir Henry Bellingham's End...
In a letter to party members Sir Henry, who is 64, says that he had "agonised" over the decision but always wanted to depart gracefully before people started saying "poor Henry he is not quite as active or dynamic as he used to be"....
Not really. If the seats Con lose in nice middle-class neighbourhoods in the South-East are outweighed by those they gain in rufty-tufty working-class neighbourhoods in the North/Midlands, then it's to Cons benefit
Yes. The Conservative Party led by a colossal lump of born-to-rule privilege by the name of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, with a supporting cast of more right wing reactionaries than you can shake a stick at, are hoping to - likely will - surf to power on the back of working class votes.
You couldn't make it up.
It's no stranger than Labour giving up on the Working Classes in favour of the Woking Classes, whose contempt for the former is virtually limitless...
Forget bollocks to billionaires, it f##k off all wealth producers.
I was going to say what about premier league clubs, espeically with european games..but they will be nationalized so they wont be able to afford them anyway.
Hahahaha...go on Jezza...it would make my life much easier.
(It is however mind-boggling stupid - as anybody in the industry would tell you).
I guess we must be at cross purposes but I thought it was common ground that regulatory divergence etc gives rise to non-tariff barriers, and lowering NTBs is generally equated with increasing alignment with the trade partner. Maybe to put the question another way with is more neutral on the subject of ‘damage’ - how do you anticipate decreasing alignment with the EU in a way that doesn’t increase NTBs, and which NTBs would you see us being able to lower in order to take advantage of neglected opportunities elsewhere, if food and environmental standards are off the table?
No it is not common ground. Regulatory alignment is not required in order to avoid Non Tariff Barriers.
Alignment is just one option available to avoid NTBs actually and the principle of mutual recognition instead is a valuable one to work with.
Still challenging I think to move down a specific mutual recognition path which the EU accept to the extent that it doesn’t introduce any barriers, but which doesn’t fetter our ability to lower NTBs with other countries. ( I think this from the IfG is still as current as it was a couple of years ago in terms of the choice we need to make https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/mutual-recognition-can-uk-have-its-brexit-cake-and-eat-it )
Specifically, though, where would we gain economically by doing this?
I guess we must be at cross purposes but I thought it was common ground that regulatory divergence etc gives rise to non-tariff barriers, and lowering NTBs is generally equated with increasing alignment with the trade partner. Maybe to put the question another way with is more neutral on the subject of ‘damage’ - how do you anticipate decreasing alignment with the EU in a way that doesn’t increase NTBs, and which NTBs would you see us being able to lower in order to take advantage of neglected opportunities elsewhere, if food and environmental standards are off the table?
No it is not common ground. Regulatory alignment is not required in order to avoid Non Tariff Barriers.
Alignment is just one option available to avoid NTBs actually and the principle of mutual recognition instead is a valuable one to work with.
I think you guys are both right.
Mutual recognition of standards requires core agreement. If one country allows a certain degree of electrical radiation, and another has a different one, then mutual recognition of standards doesn't work.
Realistically, there will likely be little to no deviation in product standards, not least because many of these are now set globally. (And we would do well to recognize this, because otherwise we'll pay a price for a freedom we'll never use.)
Where there may be deviation is in environmental and labour regulation.
I think that’s accurate - I don’t have any problem with an honest argument that the perceived economic benefit is achieved through lowering environmental and labour standards below those of the EU. That may well be democratically acceptable (working time directive doesn’t seem very popular, for example) - but the unwillingness to be open about those choices gives the impression that it’s not seen as a price the electorate would be willing to pay.
I guess we must be at cross purposes but I thought it was common ground that regulatory divergence etc gives rise to non-tariff barriers, and lowering NTBs is generally equated with increasing alignment with the trade partner. Maybe to put the question another way with is more neutral on the subject of ‘damage’ - how do you anticipate decreasing alignment with the EU in a way that doesn’t increase NTBs, and which NTBs would you see us being able to lower in order to take advantage of neglected opportunities elsewhere, if food and environmental standards are off the table?
No it is not common ground. Regulatory alignment is not required in order to avoid Non Tariff Barriers.
Alignment is just one option available to avoid NTBs actually and the principle of mutual recognition instead is a valuable one to work with.
Still challenging I think to move down a specific mutual recognition path which the EU accept to the extent that it doesn’t introduce any barriers, but which doesn’t fetter our ability to lower NTBs with other countries. ( I think this from the IfG is still as current as it was a couple of years ago in terms of the choice we need to make https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/mutual-recognition-can-uk-have-its-brexit-cake-and-eat-it )
Specifically, though, where would we gain economically by doing this?
It doesn't matter where in my opinion, it will be our choice democratically.
Furthermore it also doesn't matter that much if there are a few barriers while we keep as much as possible eliminated with the EU, while simultaneously lowering with other nations. Comparing to similar developed economies to our own the UK is not doing that great within the EU and most global economic development and growth is coming from outside Europe not inside it. That is where the opportunities are and it is up to us to make the most of them.
There`s scope for a strong contender against Hoyle in last ballot (maybe Bryant or Laing) if it gets that far. But it seems more likely that Hoyle will get over 50% in a round before that point I`d say.
On the point of antisemitism etc. A good interview with Bari Weiss, a NYT writer, who has a lot of interesting things to say about the rise of anti-Semitism in US and western Europe, from far right to far left extremists.
Not really. If the seats Con lose in nice middle-class neighbourhoods in the South-East are outweighed by those they gain in rufty-tufty working-class neighbourhoods in the North/Midlands, then it's to Cons benefit
Yes. The Conservative Party led by a colossal lump of born-to-rule privilege by the name of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, with a supporting cast of more right wing reactionaries than you can shake a stick at, are hoping to - likely will - surf to power on the back of working class votes.
You couldn't make it up.
It's no stranger than Labour giving up on the Working Classes in favour of the Woking Classes, whose contempt for the former is virtually limitless...
Woking classes? Is that a reference to the town in Surrey? I've not noticed anything about attitudes there that make it anything out of the ordinary for the south east, but it's a bit more working class than most places around that part of the world. That's still not very much mind you.
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.
I don't share that concern but if that was the argument then presumably we should be seeking to share sovereignty with America? As the organisations that affect our lives are more American than European?
We are long way from the US, both geographically and, in many respects, socially. Health policies are a case in point.
That's not what you said though, you said about business. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Walmart (ASDA) and many other companies affecting our daily lives are not German, French etc
Sharing sovereignty with the USA isn't on offer.
Would you support it if it was? I think I would.
The mask slips
What mask?
I would oppose sharing sovereignty with the USA for the same reason I oppose sharing it with France and Germany, but any Europhile who objects to sharing sovereignty with the USA on reasons of principle is a bit of a hypocrite.
Edit: and you're going to absolutely love the terms of the trade deals we are about to try to negotiate.
No specific example is what I said, or are you simply expressing your view that the dilution of sovereignty, and risk of further dilution, was not a good reason?
The modern world involves interaction with other nations for mutual gain.
Or "the dilution of sovereignty" in your quaint terms.
But there is a spectrum from isolationist states to federations. The EU is slowly moving along that spectrum, too far for a lot of people apparently.
Too far for a narrow majority of voters on one day in June 2016, I think you meant.
I think many remain voters would agree - or would have agreed, before the debate got so bloody polarised - that the EU was getting rather further down the superstate road than they'd have liked. I think many would have liked to have said in 1992, or in 2007, or whenever: 'this far and no further'. Many would have, given the option, voted for 'less Europe' - but in 2016 voted Remain as a least-worst option because Leave was too bloody difficult.
I would oppose sharing sovereignty with the USA for the same reason I oppose sharing it with France and Germany, but any Europhile who objects to sharing sovereignty with the USA on reasons of principle is a bit of a hypocrite.
In practice your policy of mutual recognition means surrendering sovereignty, because no-one will agree to accept UK standards without any political control over them, so the only way you could move in your direction would be unilateral acceptance of US, EU, Chinese, or whoever's standards. There may be an economic argument for this, but there isn't a sovereignty argument.
I find it funny that Harriet "vote for me because I'm a woman" Harman isn't even the most popular woman on the list. If Harman had pulled out and said she'd back Laing to get a woman in the chair then it would look like a much tighter race.
But Harman, like Swinson, is using her gender for her own ends she doesn't actually mean what she says. She wants people to vote for her, not for a woman.
Not really. If the seats Con lose in nice middle-class neighbourhoods in the South-East are outweighed by those they gain in rufty-tufty working-class neighbourhoods in the North/Midlands, then it's to Cons benefit
Yes. The Conservative Party led by a colossal lump of born-to-rule privilege by the name of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, with a supporting cast of more right wing reactionaries than you can shake a stick at, are hoping to - likely will - surf to power on the back of working class votes.
You couldn't make it up.
It's no stranger than Labour giving up on the Working Classes in favour of the Woking Classes, whose contempt for the former is virtually limitless...
Woking classes? Is that a reference to the town in Surrey? I've not noticed anything about attitudes there that make it anything out of the ordinary for the south east, but it's a bit more working class than most places around that part of the world. That's still not very much mind you.
Not the town Woking, but the state of Being Woke. It's, like, a pun.
Amongst other things, this will now also be the election of Sir Henry Bellingham's End...
In a letter to party members Sir Henry, who is 64, says that he had "agonised" over the decision but always wanted to depart gracefully before people started saying "poor Henry he is not quite as active or dynamic as he used to be"....
Is it possible for him to be less active and dynamic than he used to be?
I guess we must be at cross purposes but I thought it was common ground that regulatory divergence etc gives rise to non-tariff barriers, and lowering NTBs is generally equated with increasing alignment with the trade partner. Maybe to put the question another way with is more neutral on the subject of ‘damage’ - how do you anticipate decreasing alignment with the EU in a way that doesn’t increase NTBs, and which NTBs would you see us being able to lower in order to take advantage of neglected opportunities elsewhere, if food and environmental standards are off the table?
No it is not common ground. Regulatory alignment is not required in order to avoid Non Tariff Barriers.
Alignment is just one option available to avoid NTBs actually and the principle of mutual recognition instead is a valuable one to work with.
Still challenging I think to move down a specific mutual recognition path which the EU accept to the extent that it doesn’t introduce any barriers, but which doesn’t fetter our ability to lower NTBs with other countries. ( I think this from the IfG is still as current as it was a couple of years ago in terms of the choice we need to make https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/mutual-recognition-can-uk-have-its-brexit-cake-and-eat-it )
Specifically, though, where would we gain economically by doing this?
It doesn't matter where in my opinion, it will be our choice democratically.
Furthermore it also doesn't matter that much if there are a few barriers while we keep as much as possible eliminated with the EU, while simultaneously lowering with other nations. Comparing to similar developed economies to our own the UK is not doing that great within the EU and most global economic development and growth is coming from outside Europe not inside it. That is where the opportunities are and it is up to us to make the most of them.
I agree your (or my) opinion don’t matter a whole lot. If I was confident there would be a Democratic choice I’d be fairly relaxed about it, but it’s hard to see the mechanism for that choice when we are having a general election where the party in favour of this process waves away any discussion of specifics, and will almost certainly claim it has the ‘will of the people’ on its side when implementing changes in future.
I would oppose sharing sovereignty with the USA for the same reason I oppose sharing it with France and Germany, but any Europhile who objects to sharing sovereignty with the USA on reasons of principle is a bit of a hypocrite.
In practice your policy of mutual recognition means surrendering sovereignty, because no-one will agree to accept UK standards without any political control over them, so the only way you could move in your direction would be unilateral acceptance of US, EU, Chinese, or whoever's standards. There may be an economic argument for this, but there isn't a sovereignty argument.
Mutual Recognition Agreements already exist in international trade.
I would oppose sharing sovereignty with the USA for the same reason I oppose sharing it with France and Germany, but any Europhile who objects to sharing sovereignty with the USA on reasons of principle is a bit of a hypocrite.
In practice your policy of mutual recognition means surrendering sovereignty, because no-one will agree to accept UK standards without any political control over them, so the only way you could move in your direction would be unilateral acceptance of US, EU, Chinese, or whoever's standards. There may be an economic argument for this, but there isn't a sovereignty argument.
If a UK company wants to export to the US, EU or China it has to accept their standards whatever. Same goes for their companies. What's the issue?
Not really. If the seats Con lose in nice middle-class neighbourhoods in the South-East are outweighed by those they gain in rufty-tufty working-class neighbourhoods in the North/Midlands, then it's to Cons benefit
Yes. The Conservative Party led by a colossal lump of born-to-rule privilege by the name of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, with a supporting cast of more right wing reactionaries than you can shake a stick at, are hoping to - likely will - surf to power on the back of working class votes.
You couldn't make it up.
It's no stranger than Labour giving up on the Working Classes in favour of the Woking Classes, whose contempt for the former is virtually limitless...
Woking classes? Is that a reference to the town in Surrey? I've not noticed anything about attitudes there that make it anything out of the ordinary for the south east, but it's a bit more working class than most places around that part of the world. That's still not very much mind you.
I assume it is a reference to the past record of Woking electoral frauds committed by all parties.
Agree. How did it come to this whereby the Labour Party has alienated what it once thought to be its core vote?
It's difficult because in the culture war - which has been intensified so greatly by the trials & tribulations of Brexit - many of these core voters are on the wrong side. So even though Labour's policies are designed to be in their economic interest, the other stuff can - and often does - outweigh this. But, you know, I would not want to win by pandering to people. It's dirty.
I guess we must be at cross purposes but I thought it was common ground that regulatory divergence etc gives rise to non-tariff barriers, and lowering NTBs is generally equated with increasing alignment with the trade partner. Maybe to put the question another way with is more neutral on the subject of ‘damage’ - how do you anticipate decreasing alignment with the EU in a way that doesn’t increase NTBs, and which NTBs would you see us being able to lower in order to take advantage of neglected opportunities elsewhere, if food and environmental standards are off the table?
No it is not common ground. Regulatory alignment is not required in order to avoid Non Tariff Barriers.
Alignment is just one option available to avoid NTBs actually and the principle of mutual recognition instead is a valuable one to work with.
Still challenging I think to move down a specific mutual recognition path which the EU accept to the extent that it doesn’t introduce any barriers, but which doesn’t fetter our ability to lower NTBs with other countries. ( I think this from the IfG is still as current as it was a couple of years ago in terms of the choice we need to make https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/mutual-recognition-can-uk-have-its-brexit-cake-and-eat-it )
Specifically, though, where would we gain economically by doing this?
It doesn't matter where in my opinion, it will be our choice democratically.
Furthermore it also doesn't matter that much if there are a few barriers while we keep as much as possible eliminated with the EU, while simultaneously lowering with other nations. Comparing to similar developed economies to our own the UK is not doing that great within the EU and most global economic development and growth is coming from outside Europe not inside it. That is where the opportunities are and it is up to us to make the most of them.
I agree your (or my) opinion don’t matter a whole lot. If I was confident there would be a Democratic choice I’d be fairly relaxed about it, but it’s hard to see the mechanism for that choice when we are having a general election where the party in favour of this process waves away any discussion of specifics, and will almost certainly claim it has the ‘will of the people’ on its side when implementing changes in future.
Too right too! The government has made certain red lines clear - the NHS is off the table in trade talks etc, but then it needs to get on with the job. If we're not happy with the job they do we can change course in 4 years time. Nothing is forever.
Not really. If the seats Con lose in nice middle-class neighbourhoods in the South-East are outweighed by those they gain in rufty-tufty working-class neighbourhoods in the North/Midlands, then it's to Cons benefit
Yes. The Conservative Party led by a colossal lump of born-to-rule privilege by the name of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, with a supporting cast of more right wing reactionaries than you can shake a stick at, are hoping to - likely will - surf to power on the back of working class votes.
You couldn't make it up.
They'll win them because of Corbyn, but the challenge will be keeping them. Especially now that we are set to No Deal in December 2020.
Not really. If the seats Con lose in nice middle-class neighbourhoods in the South-East are outweighed by those they gain in rufty-tufty working-class neighbourhoods in the North/Midlands, then it's to Cons benefit
Yes. The Conservative Party led by a colossal lump of born-to-rule privilege by the name of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, with a supporting cast of more right wing reactionaries than you can shake a stick at, are hoping to - likely will - surf to power on the back of working class votes.
You couldn't make it up.
Well there's no inherent reason that the dividing line in politics should be between middle class and working class, nor which the upper class should side with if class IS the distinction between the two. At other times in history the dividing line politically has been religious, or which of two candidates for the throne you supported, or urban/rural. And of course in the USA politics no longer follows socio-economic divides.
If people no longer feel a party represents them, they will looks elsewhere.
Too right too! The government has made certain red lines clear - the NHS is off the table in trade talks etc, but then it needs to get on with the job. If we're not happy with the job they do we can change course in 4 years time. Nothing is forever.
If the NHS is off the table we will never have a trade deal with the USA - that golden calf is just about the only reason a President could override Congress.
And Congress isn't happy about Northern Ireland and the GFA - that come up out of the blue when in a Pizza Restaurant in DC last Tuesday afternoon.
There are some on here who will not be happy until their country is Little Cottage on the Wold (all others being outsiders, dang-it!!!!!)
Or as I put it, for some (not all, not even most) Leavers, the problem was not that the UK was being ruled by a foreign country, the problem was that it was being ruled by the wrong one.
I would oppose sharing sovereignty with the USA for the same reason I oppose sharing it with France and Germany, but any Europhile who objects to sharing sovereignty with the USA on reasons of principle is a bit of a hypocrite.
In practice your policy of mutual recognition means surrendering sovereignty, because no-one will agree to accept UK standards without any political control over them, so the only way you could move in your direction would be unilateral acceptance of US, EU, Chinese, or whoever's standards. There may be an economic argument for this, but there isn't a sovereignty argument.
Mutual Recognition Agreements already exist in international trade.
They are usually just for mutual acceptance of conformity testing, not mutual acceptance of divergent regulatory systems.
Agree. How did it come to this whereby the Labour Party has alienated what it once thought to be its core vote?
It's difficult because in the culture war - which has been intensified so greatly by the trials & tribulations of Brexit - many of these core voters are on the wrong side. So even though Labour's policies are designed to be in their economic interest, the other stuff can - and often does - outweigh this. But, you know, I would not want to win by pandering to people. It's dirty.
Ah I see. They don't know what's good for them. Gotit.
I would oppose sharing sovereignty with the USA for the same reason I oppose sharing it with France and Germany, but any Europhile who objects to sharing sovereignty with the USA on reasons of principle is a bit of a hypocrite.
In practice your policy of mutual recognition means surrendering sovereignty, because no-one will agree to accept UK standards without any political control over them, so the only way you could move in your direction would be unilateral acceptance of US, EU, Chinese, or whoever's standards. There may be an economic argument for this, but there isn't a sovereignty argument.
If a UK company wants to export to the US, EU or China it has to accept their standards whatever. Same goes for their companies. What's the issue?
If the objective is to reduce barriers, then the only easy mechanism to do so is to unilaterally accept their standards.
It's no stranger than Labour giving up on the Working Classes in favour of the Woking Classes, whose contempt for the former is virtually limitless...
Complete and utter bollox but if you came up with that phrase yourself - "giving up on the working classes in favour of the woking classes" - it's not bad and the Speccie might have an opening.
Not sure why Winterton is carrying on as there are not enough votes from Leigh and Hillier available to not come last in the next round.
Such are the complexities of the electorate in this case that it presumably isn't just those 22 up for grabs. The Tory leadership contest (MPs stage) showed the huge scope for tactical voting.
That said, this does look all over bar the shouting. Is there a sufficient "Stop Hoyle" vote to block him? Doubt it... he seems well liked across the chamber.
Looks a fairly easy 2nd or 3rd round win for Hoyle. The Bryant and Winterton votes will mostly go to him.
Yes it looks like Lindsay. If members persist in their preferences it would take three more rounds to get there, but there's a tendency to stampede once the first round result is known. (BTW the last time a Speaker's election took place, both Nick and I were both voters in it - seems a very long time ago).
Too right too! The government has made certain red lines clear - the NHS is off the table in trade talks etc, but then it needs to get on with the job. If we're not happy with the job they do we can change course in 4 years time. Nothing is forever.
If the NHS is off the table we will never have a trade deal with the USA - that golden calf is just about the only reason a President could override Congress.
And Congress isn't happy about Northern Ireland and the GFA - that come up out of the blue when in a Pizza Restaurant in DC last Tuesday afternoon.
Congress is absolutely fine with the WA now. It has given the Irish everything they wanted.
Too right too! The government has made certain red lines clear - the NHS is off the table in trade talks etc, but then it needs to get on with the job. If we're not happy with the job they do we can change course in 4 years time. Nothing is forever.
If the NHS is off the table we will never have a trade deal with the USA - that golden calf is just about the only reason a President could override Congress.
And Congress isn't happy about Northern Ireland and the GFA - that come up out of the blue when in a Pizza Restaurant in DC last Tuesday afternoon.
The Northern Ireland / GFA thing surfaced quite some time ago in the US.
I guess we must be at cross purposes but I thought it was common ground that regulatory divergence etc environmental standards are off the table?
No it is not common ground. Regulatory alignment is not required in order to avoid Non Tariff Barriers.
Alignment is just one option available to avoid NTBs actually and the principle of mutual recognition instead is a valuable one to work with.
Still challenging I think to move down a specific mutual recognition path which the EU accept to the extent that it doesn’t introduce any barriers, but which doesn’t fetter our ability to lower NTBs with other countries. ( I think this from the IfG is still as current as it was a couple of years ago in terms of the choice we need to make https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/mutual-recognition-can-uk-have-its-brexit-cake-and-eat-it )
Specifically, though, where would we gain economically by doing this?
It doesn't matter where in my opinion, it will be our choice democratically.
Furthermore it also doesn't matter that much if there are a few barriers while we keep as much as possible eliminated with the EU, while simultaneously lowering with other nations. Comparing to similar developed economies to our own the UK is not doing that great within the EU and most global economic development and growth is coming from outside Europe not inside it. That is where the opportunities are and it is up to us to make the most of them.
I agree your (or my) opinion don’t matter a whole lot. If I was confident there would be a Democratic choice I’d be fairly relaxed about it, but it’s hard to see the mechanism for that choice when we are having a general election where the party in favour of this process waves away any discussion of specifics, and will almost certainly claim it has the ‘will of the people’ on its side when implementing changes in future.
Too right too! The government has made certain red lines clear - the NHS is off the table in trade talks etc, but then it needs to get on with the job. If we're not happy with the job they do we can change course in 4 years time. Nothing is forever.
The government made clear there would be no customes border in the Irish Sea. Then it agreed one.
Too right too! The government has made certain red lines clear - the NHS is off the table in trade talks etc, but then it needs to get on with the job. If we're not happy with the job they do we can change course in 4 years time. Nothing is forever.
If the NHS is off the table we will never have a trade deal with the USA - that golden calf is just about the only reason a President could override Congress.
And Congress isn't happy about Northern Ireland and the GFA - that come up out of the blue when in a Pizza Restaurant in DC last Tuesday afternoon.
The Northern Ireland / GFA thing surfaced quite some time ago in the US.
Too right too! The government has made certain red lines clear - the NHS is off the table in trade talks etc, but then it needs to get on with the job. If we're not happy with the job they do we can change course in 4 years time. Nothing is forever.
If the NHS is off the table we will never have a trade deal with the USA - that golden calf is just about the only reason a President could override Congress.
And Congress isn't happy about Northern Ireland and the GFA - that come up out of the blue when in a Pizza Restaurant in DC last Tuesday afternoon.
The Northern Ireland / GFA thing surfaced quite some time ago in the US.
Too right too! The government has made certain red lines clear - the NHS is off the table in trade talks etc, but then it needs to get on with the job. If we're not happy with the job they do we can change course in 4 years time. Nothing is forever.
If the NHS is off the table we will never have a trade deal with the USA - that golden calf is just about the only reason a President could override Congress.
And Congress isn't happy about Northern Ireland and the GFA - that come up out of the blue when in a Pizza Restaurant in DC last Tuesday afternoon.
The Northern Ireland / GFA thing surfaced quite some time ago in the US.
Not as bad as the Tory candidate for the Gower advocating that benefit claimants 'be put down'. Beyond that if someone despises another person, how they privately respond to their demise is a matter for them. Many danced for joy when Hitler died - when Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were murdered -and a significant number celebrated Thatcher's death. The same will happen when Blair pops his clogs.
I guess we must be at cross purposes but I thought it was common ground that regulatory divergence etc environmental standards are off the table?
No it is not common ground. Regulatory alignment is not required in order to avoid Non Tariff Barriers.
Alignment is just one option available to avoid NTBs actually and the principle of mutual recognition instead is a valuable one to work with.
Still challenging I think to move down a specific mutual recognition path which the EU accept to the extent that it doesn’t introduce any barriers, but which doesn’t fetter our ability to lower NTBs with other countries. ( I think this from the IfG is still as current as it was a couple of years ago in terms of the choice we need to make https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/mutual-recognition-can-uk-have-its-brexit-cake-and-eat-it )
Specifically, though, where would we gain economically by doing this?
It doesn't matter where in my opinion, it will be our choice democratically.
Furthermore it also doesn't matter that much if there are a few barriers while we keep as much as possible eliminated with the EU, while simultaneously lowering with other nations. Comparing to similar developed economies to our own the UK is not doing that great within the EU and most global economic development and growth is coming from outside Europe not inside it. That is where the opportunities are and it is up to us to make the most of them.
I agree your (or my) opinion don’t matter a whole lot. If I was confident there would be a Democratic choice I’d be fairly relaxed about it, but it’s hard to see the mechanism for that choice when we are having a general election where the party in favour of this process waves away any discussion of specifics, and will almost certainly claim it has the ‘will of the people’ on its side when implementing changes in future.
Too right too! The government has made certain red lines clear - the NHS is off the table in trade talks etc, but then it needs to get on with the job. If we're not happy with the job they do we can change course in 4 years time. Nothing is forever.
The government made clear there would be no customes border in the Irish Sea. Then it agreed one.
You can't spend months demanding someone is being stubborn and needs to compromise, and then being upset when they do.
1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero. 2. Droit de Suite (you can google it). 3. Er... 4. That's it.
ps. We were always sovereign
Always sovereign de jure, perhaps. In reality laws and regulations were made in Brussels.
We proved we were sovereign by voting to Leave. Oh you mean the laws and regulations that we, as part of the organisation, had a hand in devising, and thought on balance were better for the country than otherwise? Those laws and regulations?
I mean even though it doesn't seem right I do think that sometimes people should be denied the vote if they are too dim to understand how the modern world works.
Immediately with the condescending reply, thanks.
What the UK thinks is immaterial in a lot of areas now, and that list Is only growing with the desire to have everything decided under QMV. Of courses we had influence in those decisions, but not a right to ignore the decisions if we had wished to remain a member.
What is the point in arguing with him? If he wants to think we were sovereign, rock on.
Too right too! The government has made certain red lines clear - the NHS is off the table in trade talks etc, but then it needs to get on with the job. If we're not happy with the job they do we can change course in 4 years time. Nothing is forever.
If the NHS is off the table we will never have a trade deal with the USA - that golden calf is just about the only reason a President could override Congress.
And Congress isn't happy about Northern Ireland and the GFA - that come up out of the blue when in a Pizza Restaurant in DC last Tuesday afternoon.
The Northern Ireland / GFA thing surfaced quite some time ago in the US.
Too right too! The government has made certain red lines clear - the NHS is off the table in trade talks etc, but then it needs to get on with the job. If we're not happy with the job they do we can change course in 4 years time. Nothing is forever.
If the NHS is off the table we will never have a trade deal with the USA - that golden calf is just about the only reason a President could override Congress.
And Congress isn't happy about Northern Ireland and the GFA - that come up out of the blue when in a Pizza Restaurant in DC last Tuesday afternoon.
The Northern Ireland / GFA thing surfaced quite some time ago in the US.
Some of the Corbyn 'outrider' accounts were claiming it was a fake account, but a number of Jewish journalists had named a member of a Midlands CLP as being behind the account.
Some of the Corbyn 'outrider' accounts were claiming it was a fake account, but a number of Jewish journalists had named a member of a Midlands CLP as being behind the account.
Very easy to spoof. Just need a Palestine flag and some sort or pro Liverpool fc blurb and it becomes hard to tell who is real and who is not.
Not really. If the seats Con lose in nice middle-class neighbourhoods in the South-East are outweighed by those they gain in rufty-tufty working-class neighbourhoods in the North/Midlands, then it's to Cons benefit
Yes. The Conservative Party led by a colossal lump of born-to-rule privilege by the name of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, with a supporting cast of more right wing reactionaries than you can shake a stick at, are hoping to - likely will - surf to power on the back of working class votes.
You couldn't make it up.
It's no stranger than Labour giving up on the Working Classes in favour of the Woking Classes, whose contempt for the former is virtually limitless...
Woking classes? Is that a reference to the town in Surrey? I've not noticed anything about attitudes there that make it anything out of the ordinary for the south east, but it's a bit more working class than most places around that part of the world. That's still not very much mind you.
Not the town Woking, but the state of Being Woke. It's, like, a pun.
Okay. I dare say that is very amusing. Why are woke people contemptuous of working people? I've heard the term a few times but I don't really get what it means.
Specifically, though, where would we gain economically by doing this?
It doesn't matter where in my opinion, it will be our choice democratically.
Furthermore of them.
I agree your (or my) opinion don’t matter a whole lot. If I was confident there would be a Democratic choice I’d be fairly relaxed about it, but it’s hard to see the mechanism for that choice when we are having a general election where the party in favour of this process waves away any discussion of specifics, and will almost certainly claim it has the ‘will of the people’ on its side when implementing changes in future.
Too right too! The government has made certain red lines clear - the NHS is off the table in trade talks etc, but then it needs to get on with the job. If we're not happy with the job they do we can change course in 4 years time. Nothing is forever.
The government made clear there would be no customes border in the Irish Sea. Then it agreed one.
You can't spend months demanding someone is being stubborn and needs to compromise, and then being upset when they do.
I am delighted Johnson betrayed the DUP and gave the Irish what they wanted. I think a No Deal that inflicted significant economic harm on Ireland would have done immense damage to the UK's long-term reputation. It's important that the consequences of Brexit are felt as much as possible in the UK and as little as possible elsewhere. Johnson's deal ensures that when we do crash out of the EU's orbit next December it is us that suffers by far the most harm.
Ah I see. They don't know what's good for them. Gotit.
I would not put it like that. That sounds patronizing and what I feel isn't.
I would more put it like this -
If you offer people what you think they should be wanting but it turns out that they want something else, something which you think they shouldn't want, the response should be to offer them what you think they should want a bit harder, rather than to change your offer and pretend that you now agree that what you actually think they shouldn't want is not only what they do want but what they are right to want.
Too right too! The government has made certain red lines clear - the NHS is off the table in trade talks etc, but then it needs to get on with the job. If we're not happy with the job they do we can change course in 4 years time. Nothing is forever.
If the NHS is off the table we will never have a trade deal with the USA - that golden calf is just about the only reason a President could override Congress.
And Congress isn't happy about Northern Ireland and the GFA - that come up out of the blue when in a Pizza Restaurant in DC last Tuesday afternoon.
The Northern Ireland / GFA thing surfaced quite some time ago in the US.
1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero. 2. Droit de Suite (you can google it). 3. Er... 4. That's it.
ps. We were always sovereign
Always sovereign de jure, perhaps. In reality laws and regulations were made in Brussels.
We proved we were sovereign by voting to Leave. Oh you mean the laws and regulations that we, as part of the organisation, had a hand in devising, and thought on balance were better for the country than otherwise? Those laws and regulations?
I mean even though it doesn't seem right I do think that sometimes people should be denied the vote if they are too dim to understand how the modern world works.
Immediately with the condescending reply, thanks.
What the UK thinks is immaterial in a lot of areas now, and that list Is only growing with the desire to have everything decided under QMV. Of courses we had influence in those decisions, but not a right to ignore the decisions if we had wished to remain a member.
What is the point in arguing with him? If he wants to think we were sovereign, rock on.
Not me, sunshine, your great hero David Davis. And he of course should know.
Too right too! The government has made certain red lines clear - the NHS is off the table in trade talks etc, but then it needs to get on with the job. If we're not happy with the job they do we can change course in 4 years time. Nothing is forever.
If the NHS is off the table we will never have a trade deal with the USA - that golden calf is just about the only reason a President could override Congress.
And Congress isn't happy about Northern Ireland and the GFA - that come up out of the blue when in a Pizza Restaurant in DC last Tuesday afternoon.
The Northern Ireland / GFA thing surfaced quite some time ago in the US.
From the Northern Ireland perspective, Boris's deal is a disaster
Why? I thought they wanted the wanted a frictionless border, which they now have. And if they don't, they can vote to end the arrangements. Win/win.
I think they also had some enthusiasm for a frictionless border with Great Britain.
About 12% of NI's trade will be in the frictionless zone. Trade with the UK (the new "lots of admin, charges and claim-backs") is about 60% of NI's trade.
So almost everybody's admin bills are going up just to keep doing business with what is supposedly the rest of the country.
Comments
In a letter to party members Sir Henry, who is 64, says that he had "agonised" over the decision but always wanted to depart gracefully before people started saying "poor Henry he is not quite as active or dynamic as he used to be"....
(It is however mind-boggling stupid - as anybody in the industry would tell you).
Specifically, though, where would we gain economically by doing this?
Harman 72
Hillier 10
Hoyle 211
Laing 113
Leigh 12
Winterton 46
In total three candidates have resigned from TBP the day that the candidates list was announced
Her social media history is getting quite a bit of exposure in the press now.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1191377197434638338
Lindsay Hoyle clear winner in first ballot, but short of 50% of votes needed
Ken Clarke announces the result.
He says 562 MPs voted.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle: 211
Dame Eleanor Laing: 113
Chris Bryant: 98
Harriet Harman: 72
Dame Rosie Winterton: 46
Sir Edward Leigh: 12
Meg Hillier: 10
Clarke says Hillier and Leigh are now out, because Hillier came last, and Leigh also received fewer than 5% of votes cast.
He says any other candidate who wants to drop out must say so within the next 10 minutes.
If the 562 MPs who voted stay for the rest of the day, a candidate needs 282 to get more than 50%
Laing 113
Bryant 98
Harman 72
Winterton 46
Leigh 12
Hillier 10
Is it FPTP or will there be a second round?
Furthermore it also doesn't matter that much if there are a few barriers while we keep as much as possible eliminated with the EU, while simultaneously lowering with other nations. Comparing to similar developed economies to our own the UK is not doing that great within the EU and most global economic development and growth is coming from outside Europe not inside it. That is where the opportunities are and it is up to us to make the most of them.
On these figures, he's clearly beatable if there is a particular will for an alternative.
[Chris Williamson]
https://samharris.org/podcasts/173-anti-semitism-discontents/
I would oppose sharing sovereignty with the USA for the same reason I oppose sharing it with France and Germany, but any Europhile who objects to sharing sovereignty with the USA on reasons of principle is a bit of a hypocrite.
Maggie could do business with him.
I haven't heard a decision on his eligibility to stand for Labour yet.
Even Harman, who I would not rate for high office, would still be OK as speaker.
But Harman, like Swinson, is using her gender for her own ends she doesn't actually mean what she says. She wants people to vote for her, not for a woman.
If people no longer feel a party represents them, they will looks elsewhere.
And Congress isn't happy about Northern Ireland and the GFA - that come up out of the blue when in a Pizza Restaurant in DC last Tuesday afternoon.
That said, this does look all over bar the shouting. Is there a sufficient "Stop Hoyle" vote to block him? Doubt it... he seems well liked across the chamber.
(BTW the last time a Speaker's election took place, both Nick and I were both voters in it - seems a very long time ago).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/31/brexit-mess-with-good-friday-and-well-block-uk-trade-deal-us-politicians-warn
The requirements of a US trade deal depend a lot on who the President is. A President Warren would be presumably very supportive of the NHS.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1191282552553824256/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1191282552553824256&ref_url=https://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&f=harrysplace&t_i=120838%20http%3A%2F%2Fhurryupharry.org%2F%3Fp%3D120838&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fhurryupharry.org%2F2019%2F11%2F03%2Fmaster-debaters%2F&t_e=Master%20Debaters&t_d=Master%20Debaters%20%E2%80%93%20Harry%27s%20Place&t_t=Master%20Debaters&s_o=default#version=4fd81c9e35c659f1046a0c8a1b32ae30
From the Northern Ireland perspective, Boris's deal is a disaster
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7647359/Downing-Street-rules-extending-Brexit-transition-period-past-2020.html
Blocked 2 days ago
Johnson v Corbyn v Swinson
Have they asked Boris and Jeremy ?
And how about Sturgeon and Farage
I would more put it like this -
If you offer people what you think they should be wanting but it turns out that they want something else, something which you think they shouldn't want, the response should be to offer them what you think they should want a bit harder, rather than to change your offer and pretend that you now agree that what you actually think they shouldn't want is not only what they do want but what they are right to want.
It's called integrity.
assuming UNS, then relative to 2017
labour win 18 seats (down 10)
con 17 (up 9)
plaid 4
libs 1(up 1)
https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2019-11-04/poll-labour-has-1-welsh-lead-but-most-voters-say-corbyn-s-poor-or-terrible/
So almost everybody's admin bills are going up just to keep doing business with what is supposedly the rest of the country.
Labour: 29 (+4)
Conservatives: 28 (-1)
Brexit Party: 15 (+1)
Liberal Democrats: 12 (-4)
Plaid Cymru: 12 (no change)
Greens: 3 (-1)
Others: 1 (no change)