Getting back to the point of the thread, what are your views on Sir John Major's speech? Among other things, he doesn't seem as sanguine as you about the state of the economy...
Where have I made any comment, positive or negative, on the state of the economy?
Stop trying to be too clever.
Well I took your comment to me this morning to be a counter that the U.K. Is doing perfectly well because it has 4.4% unemployment rate. It is certainly true that you very rarely make any comment that offers a clear unambiguous personal opinion on anything. I am simply inviting you to do so now, since Sir John Major's speech is the Brexit talking point of the day.
Getting back to the point of the thread, what are your views on Sir John Major's speech? Among other things, he doesn't seem as sanguine as you about the state of the economy...
Where have I made any comment, positive or negative, on the state of the economy?
Stop trying to be too clever.
Well I took your comment to me this morning to be a counter that the U.K. Is doing perfectly well because it has 4.4% unemployment rate. It is certainly true that you very rarely make any comment that offers a clear unambiguous personal opinion on anything. I am simply inviting you to do so now, since Sir John Major's speech is the Brexit talking point of the day.
I have a distrust and a dislike of the austerity the EU under the influence of Germany has put as a conerstone of its policies. That is a big reason why Galloway, Skinner and even Corbyn are not fans. But you have to be pragmatic and accept that we benefit from being part of it for all its faults. Any bits you don't like, you can always try to influence and change from within. Whilst some of the actions of the EU can rightly be claimed to be against the interests of working people, they stitched Greece up good and proper, those that are at the forefront of Brexit are much less inclined to help working people. At least the EU has legislation that gives people rights and protections that the Brexiters want to rip up.
Greece is a great example of how simplistic some people view things. They say great that an austerity Greece can never get out of is imposed on it - It deserves it! But the reality is that it is a punishment which means Greece will pay back less of what it owes and its people will suffer more. Great again, let the bastards suffer - that is sadly how a lot of people think! Now this is an argument against the EU policy makers - but the people who hold this view are more likely to be in the Brexit camp. We had a polar opposite referendum campaign were Brexit was perfect and the EU was perfect, when the reality was always the EU was far from perfect, but Brexit was idiotic. Just from the perspective of pragmatic self interest.
Of course the Brexiteers were allowed to lie through their teeth so as a result pro- remainers had to big up the EU rather than admit its faults. It was a crazy referendum that degenerated into Xenophobia and led do the death of an exceptional young woman.
Getting back to the point of the thread, what are your views on Sir John Major's speech? Among other things, he doesn't seem as sanguine as you about the state of the economy...
Where have I made any comment, positive or negative, on the state of the economy?
Stop trying to be too clever.
Well I took your comment to me this morning to be a counter that the U.K. Is doing perfectly well because it has 4.4% unemployment rate. It is certainly true that you very rarely make any comment that offers a clear unambiguous personal opinion on anything. I am simply inviting you to do so now, since Sir John Major's speech is the Brexit talking point of the day.
#games #nicetry #answerthebloodyquestion
This thread is about Brexit. You play the game of doing your best to derail it, and always by having a nibble at Remainer ankles. Funny, that. I fell into the trap of reacting this morning, and others followed. My fault, thread derailed, your result, again. Time's up on that, this is a thread for serious debate, I invite you once again to join in.
To be fair you probably have not listened to his entire speech, which is some 40 minutes - and the Q&A afterwards is almost as good. So why don't you give that a whirl, and get back to us tomorrow. As a "Remainer", you'll doubtless be reinforced in your views by his clear sighted arguments. Maybe finally you will feel sufficiently emboldened to take on some of the Brexiteer viewpoints on here. Actually, if you do that I will volunteer to shut up all day so I can watch and learn from your craft. That has to be a good deal, surely? :-)
Getting back to the point of the thread, what are your views on Sir John Major's speech? Among other things, he doesn't seem as sanguine as you about the state of the economy...
Where have I made any comment, positive or negative, on the state of the economy?
Stop trying to be too clever.
Well I took your comment to me this morning to be a counter that the U.K. Is doing perfectly well because it has 4.4% unemployment rate. It is certainly true that you very rarely make any comment that offers a clear unambiguous personal opinion on anything. I am simply inviting you to do so now, since Sir John Major's speech is the Brexit talking point of the day.
#games #nicetry #answerthebloodyquestion
This thread is about Brexit. You play the game of doing your best to derail it, and always by having a nibble at Remainer ankles. Funny, that. I fell into the trap of reacting this morning, and others followed. My fault, thread derailed, your result, again. Time's up on that, this is a thread for serious debate, I invite you once again to join in.
To be fair you probably have not listened to his entire speech, which is some 40 minutes - and the Q&A afterwards is almost as good. So why don't you give that a whirl, and get back to us tomorrow. As a "Remainer", you'll doubtless be reinforced in your views by his clear sighted arguments. Maybe finally you will feel sufficiently emboldened to take on some of the Brexiteer viewpoints on here. Actually, if you do that I will volunteer to shut up all day so I can watch and learn from your craft. That has to be a good deal, surely? :-)
You're coming across as a bit mental, mate. Night. x
On Newsnight talking about the Irish border, Bill Cash suggests turning a 'blind eye' on events on the border.
It's fairly clear that the hard Brexit merchants are not fully paid up members of the Conservative and Unionist Party! Cash just reiterates differences in currency and corporation tax - irrelevant since that occurs across the EU and EFTA.
The DUP might buy this but nobody else does.
The rights and wrongs are irrelevant given that the UK have failed to put anything written down in front of M.Barnier.
Also, @seriously_red , what are your thoughts on Pareto Distribution?
Obviously we need to sign him to replace Kashi...
In all seriousness, nobody is arguing for absolute equality, just less inequality. Nothing to do with a redistribution of wealth but it may interest people to know that Europe has a far smaller disparity of wealth and income than the UK and US.
As for Price - not heard of that but fully familliar with Pareto since I use it all the time in my work. Every client I work with has their pet views about what's wrong and five different people will have five priorities. But it is always 20% of the environment delivering the value and the data. And the technological revolution unfolding may well exacerbate these trends?
Whatever the wealth disparities, since Victorian times we have had charitable works and this evolved into the post war welfare state. Today we have alternatives of universal credit and universal basic income to consider. The fact remains that if a large number of voters have no realistic prospects of breaking out of poverty then that is going to cause social tensions.
We have excessive inequalities and a lack of political solutions. That @Southbank and I agree that these are down to decades of neoliberalism and deregulation (which exacerbates the Gini coefficient) is neither ironic nor a mystery. We are talking of vast numbers of people and vast amounts of money. It so happens that half of my journeys outside the M25 are on airport runs and the other half are to places such as Essex, the Midlands and Newcastle to visit friends and family. Now we wouldn't live out there but millions do and it's a different world.
The 58% who voted leave from those parts of the world voted for a reason - not just lack of wealth but lack of investment and opportunity. Smart people from those areas just get on their bikes - get educated and find decent first jobs. Many of the rest buy into the likes of UKIP and actually believe that the EU is the problem.
What happens after we leave and nothing changes in these people's lives? The solutions are as yet unclear but we all have a chance to witness the Italian election on Sunday. Aside from Burlusconi centre right (28%) and the Progressive Democrats (22%) I have no idea what the rest stand for nor how they will do. Nor have I been to the south of Italy but I hear that it's in really bad shape.
So what's the solution to both Pareto and Price's Laws. That to me would go some way to solving the inequality of wealth problem.
That sir is the big question for the post crash, 21st century economy. There will always be differences between urban/metropolitan centres and the country/ coast. And there are movements in both directions of old and young. The question is what is the win, what is the goal? My reading and understanding is at a certain level... But we should be aware that we are talking political philosophy as well as political economy.
There will never be a perfect solution but we should all work to restore matters such that Charlton finish above Millwall - that would help bring calm to proceedings.
''The facts are the Brexit agenda is being predominantly driven by those on the right (and quite clearly far to the right too). Criticism of that agenda can only be linked by association to those pushing it...who by and large happen to be right wingers.
I reserve a special level of contempt for Kate Hoey btw...''
Dennis Skinner and George Galloway also voted Brexit, hardly right wingers mate!
Unless they are, secretly, the power behind the Government, puppet masters, if you will, they are not actually driving the agenda.
Just as with dissident Irish Republicans, who, all the evidence also indicates (because they were campaigning amongst their supporters for such a vote), voted for Brexit.
Chippy posts here, and says he voted leave, and his blanket comments regarding 'the Irish' are not exactly what you might call gracious. Have you missed that stuff? Maybe my antennae is too tuned in on that particular topic.
I have every good reason too as i am part irish. And all of that part that gave me it is all bad.
The trouble I have with that is you use your personal antipathy to tarnish and hate a whole nation or peoples. Now what is that definition of racist?
What you blabbing on about.
I am blabbing on about this comment from Big Bad World:
I've not heard one leave voter mention 'foreigners' in a disparaging light.
...And I am using you as an example.
When i lived in Scotland i was called a foreigner on many occasions, but as usual celts can hate the English but when it's the other way round they bleet as usual.
That is a bit simplistic - but rather than criticise them for hating us, you think the solution is to hate them back. There is a faux rivalry when it comes to sport etc... like we get at football matches where we hate fellow South Londoners more than anybody else. I had a Scottish girlfriend many moons ago, I have Scottish friends - they don't really hate us!
Chippy posts here, and says he voted leave, and his blanket comments regarding 'the Irish' are not exactly what you might call gracious. Have you missed that stuff? Maybe my antennae is too tuned in on that particular topic.
I have every good reason too as i am part irish. And all of that part that gave me it is all bad.
The trouble I have with that is you use your personal antipathy to tarnish and hate a whole nation or peoples. Now what is that definition of racist?
What you blabbing on about.
I am blabbing on about this comment from Big Bad World:
I've not heard one leave voter mention 'foreigners' in a disparaging light.
...And I am using you as an example.
When i lived in Scotland i was called a foreigner on many occasions, but as usual celts can hate the English but when it's the other way round they bleet as usual.
You are a very present example of a leave voter being disparaging to foreigners and I have pointed that out to Big Bad World because he was doubtful that people with your attitude exist.
With the greatest respect, do not deliberately misrepresent what I said.
That happens a lot here, or your words get twisted around.
''The facts are the Brexit agenda is being predominantly driven by those on the right (and quite clearly far to the right too). Criticism of that agenda can only be linked by association to those pushing it...who by and large happen to be right wingers.
I reserve a special level of contempt for Kate Hoey btw...''
Dennis Skinner and George Galloway also voted Brexit, hardly right wingers mate!
Yeah, I think we've cleared this up already the but in case of any doubt I don't see George Galloway or the Beast of Holdover being in any way influential in how Brexit is developing do you? It's being driven and controlled by the right. In the press and in parliament.
He wasn't the best Prime Minister but always struck me as honest - apart from cheating on his wife with Edwina Currie! Mind you I thought Liam Fox left parliament in disgrace - Are we supposed to have forgotten and he can be slipped back in without anybody noticing?
Cheating on your partner is one of the most dishonest and quite disgusting things anyone can do. But seeing as its you john, its quite ok.
What's your feelings about Boris in that case then?
What part of anyone do you not understand. Think shooters and me need to save you a seat in our evening class.
...and Nigel? He's a bit of a hero to you isn't he?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
''The facts are the Brexit agenda is being predominantly driven by those on the right (and quite clearly far to the right too). Criticism of that agenda can only be linked by association to those pushing it...who by and large happen to be right wingers.
I reserve a special level of contempt for Kate Hoey btw...''
Dennis Skinner and George Galloway also voted Brexit, hardly right wingers mate!
Yeah, I think we've cleared this up already the but in case of any doubt I don't see George Galloway or the Beast of Holdover being in any way influential in how Brexit is developing do you? It's being driven and controlled by the right. In the press and in parliament.
He wasn't the best Prime Minister but always struck me as honest - apart from cheating on his wife with Edwina Currie! Mind you I thought Liam Fox left parliament in disgrace - Are we supposed to have forgotten and he can be slipped back in without anybody noticing?
Cheating on your partner is one of the most dishonest and quite disgusting things anyone can do. But seeing as its you john, its quite ok.
What's your feelings about Boris in that case then?
What part of anyone do you not understand. Think shooters and me need to save you a seat in our evening class.
...and Nigel? He's a bit of a hero to you isn't he?
Massive hero...
It's nice to have someone to look up to I suppose.
"Miss Fuller, who also claims the relationship plunged her into depression and self harm, has accused the 56-year-old of dishonesty and hypocrisy.
She told the Mail on Sunday: "Right from the beginning, lying about the affair was a strategy we decided on. We had many conversations about it, even in the past couple of years. He told me I had to keep quiet."
She went on: "Nigel and I both knew we had to keep quiet to save Brexit. We are both liars and hypocrites..."
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But of course there is a soft Brexit otherwise nobody who wants a hard Brexit will be bothered by what Corbyn said this week. His position is to leave the EU!
What a thought provoking composition. Thank you for putting it up. It most certainly gives food for thought on a myriad of issues and the political fall out between mainstream parties and the electorate.
Said fall out, I believe, has also happened due to the historical landscape of only having a two party system. I think people have been crying out for alternatives for years, even decades. Unfortunately a number of those people grabbed hold of the first beacon of light that was given to them, no matter how far removed from their current political beliefs that party was. So long as there was some common territory/ground then that was enough for them to dip their toe in to that particular party's world. As time went on these people felt as if they were being attacked by those with differing views (the centre lurchers that also found a new voice decrying anyone that didn't subscribe to this new, relatively wishy-washy and high on delegative leadership and responsibility, political vision) and it only served to embolden and strengthen their resolve and, in some cases, pushed them further away from their previously held positions and in to a more marginalised/unsavoury standpoint.
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But of course there is a soft Brexit otherwise nobody who wants a hard Brexit will be bothered by what Corbyn said this week. His position is to leave the EU!
Apparently there's another interpretation of what Southbank means when he says, "... I was a soft Leaver until the referendum...", as he did recently, before explaining that the EU's approach has moved him to the hardest of Brexits possible.
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But of course there is a soft Brexit otherwise nobody who wants a hard Brexit will be bothered by what Corbyn said this week. His position is to leave the EU!
It does not matter what Corbyn or May want-it is what the EU is prepared to give that matters. They will not allow the UK to flout the four freedoms. That has been crystal clear from the start.
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But of course there is a soft Brexit otherwise nobody who wants a hard Brexit will be bothered by what Corbyn said this week. His position is to leave the EU!
Apparently there's another interpretation of what Southbank means when he says, "... I was a soft Leaver until the referendum...", as he did recently, before explaining that the EU's approach has moved him to the hardest of Brexits possible.
Now of course there's only one version.
Wrong again-I was always in favour of completely leaving the EU, but it was not top of my concerns. Now I am still in favour of completely leaving the EU and it is top of my concerns. Got it now?
Getting back to the point of the thread, what are your views on Sir John Major's speech? Among other things, he doesn't seem as sanguine as you about the state of the economy...
Where have I made any comment, positive or negative, on the state of the economy?
Stop trying to be too clever.
Well I took your comment to me this morning to be a counter that the U.K. Is doing perfectly well because it has 4.4% unemployment rate. It is certainly true that you very rarely make any comment that offers a clear unambiguous personal opinion on anything. I am simply inviting you to do so now, since Sir John Major's speech is the Brexit talking point of the day.
#games #nicetry #answerthebloodyquestion
You play the game of doing your best to derail it
No. There is a difference between playing the game you mention and not wanting to play your games. The way in which you approach others, with sly little digs to try and get them to engage in your game of superiority, is quite an ugly thing to see/watch.
I choose to take no part in it. If that irks you and leads you to make wild assumptions and level accusations against me then you carry on. It affects me not.
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But of course there is a soft Brexit otherwise nobody who wants a hard Brexit will be bothered by what Corbyn said this week. His position is to leave the EU!
It does not matter what Corbyn or May want-it is what the EU is prepared to give that matters. They will not allow the UK to flout the four freedoms. That has been crystal clear from the start.
Not according to all the Brexiteers it hasn't. I think we should term them as cake and eat it merchants!
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But of course there is a soft Brexit otherwise nobody who wants a hard Brexit will be bothered by what Corbyn said this week. His position is to leave the EU!
It does not matter what Corbyn or May want-it is what the EU is prepared to give that matters. They will not allow the UK to flout the four freedoms. That has been crystal clear from the start.
Not according to all the Brexiteers it hasn't. I think we should term them as cake and eat it merchants!
Yet you're happy for Corbyn to do that exact same thing?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But of course there is a soft Brexit otherwise nobody who wants a hard Brexit will be bothered by what Corbyn said this week. His position is to leave the EU!
It does not matter what Corbyn or May want-it is what the EU is prepared to give that matters. They will not allow the UK to flout the four freedoms. That has been crystal clear from the start.
Wrapped in this post is some reality in my view. I wouldn't use the phrase 'what the EU is prepared to give' so much as 'what the EU is'. For 43 years the UK has participated in shaping the EU and knows full well what it is, and what it is allowed to 'give' as it were. What has indeed been crystal clear from the start is the nature of the EU and unsurprisingly they have maintained that nature and not been chameleon like, like the shifting nature of the incompetent UK. Indeed the UK has tried to disguise it's incompetence at every turn on every issue by calling it 'negotiations', but it is the EU one has to turn to if anybody wants to know where they stand. I must be the only poster frustrated by this term 'hard', be it brexit or the border. The concept of a soft brexit or border is meaningless it seems to me, and going down that road leads into a new morass of interpretations and 'solutions'. One reliable and consistent feature of this whole malarkey has been the very admirable nature of the EU, and they seem to simply be waiting for the UK to realise you can't have your cake and eat it too however much of a tantrum it throws.
What a thought provoking composition. Thank you for putting it up. It most certainly gives food for thought on a myriad of issues and the political fall out between mainstream parties and the electorate.
Said fall out, I believe, has also happened due to the historical landscape of only having a two party system. I think people have been crying out for alternatives for years, even decades. Unfortunately a number of those people grabbed hold of the first beacon of light that was given to them, no matter how far removed from their current political beliefs that party was. So long as there was some common territory/ground then that was enough for them to dip their toe in to that particular party's world. As time went on these people felt as if they were being attacked by those with differing views (the centre lurchers that also found a new voice decrying anyone that didn't subscribe to this new, relatively wishy-washy and high on delegative leadership and responsibility, political vision) and it only served to embolden and strengthen their resolve and, in some cases, pushed them further away from their previously held positions and in to a more marginalised/unsavoury standpoint.
Is it worth reading parts 1-3?
Your question has pushed me to read 2 & 3 before answering and it most certainly is worth skimming. What the editors have done is find four or five political scientists / philosophers who predicted populism, Brexit and Trump before it happened. They talk of the Trilemma between globalisation, democracy and sovereignty - you can have just two out of three unless compromise is made. And that is exactly the debate we are having in the UK in 2018 over a soft and hard Brexit. For we can have a Customs Union and Single Market but not much say over the rules if we go with Norway.
As Eleanor Roosevelt said "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events and small minds discuss people". What we have here is Millwall and Charlton fans discussing ideas and events. Occasionally the conversation hits a low but so what. There are enough people here from all sides, and enough with personal connections to Ireland to make this quite illuminating. (For those who don't know my wife's family is from County Claire and she was brought up in Limerick)
As posted before the centre left is somewhat troubled and have been since the crash. On Sunday we will see the outcome of Italian elections plus the SPD membership vote on whether to go into coalition with Merkel. The result of those two decisions will surely affect the ability of Macron and others to lead a drive towards Eurozone Mk2. And that in turn will have the same discussions about economic benefits, gini coefficient and the democratic deficit plus sovereignty of course.
The part of the puzzle I don't understand is the effects of QE - i.e., the ability of nations or the eurozone to print money. When you add that to new technologies such as blockchain and crypto currencies (run by states and not faceless individuals) then we are moving rapidly into uncharted waters which surely require new approaches to philosophy and the political economy.
I agree with almost everything you say here. I heard Blair on the radio this morning saying that he is going to ask the EU to change its immigration policies to allow the UK to stay in.
Whether he is sincere or not, he also does not seem to understand that the EU is a political as well as an economic project. Its end goal is a federal Europe, however long and tortuous that journey may be. It will not change its direction to suit the requirements of any one of its members, except the most important one-Germany.
As long as Germany is on board with the project the 4 freedoms will be inviolable and countries that want to be part of it have to accept that. The 'negotiations' are delusional, demoralising and potentially dangerous, as we can see with the EU's plan to annex Northern Ireland if they cannot get their way.
Reply to Seth I agree with almost everything you say here. I heard Blair on the radio this morning saying that he is going to ask the EU to change its immigration policies to allow the UK to stay in.
Whether he is sincere or not, he also does not seem to understand that the EU is a political as well as an economic project. Its end goal is a federal Europe, however long and tortuous that journey may be. It will not change its direction to suit the requirements of any one of its members, except the most important one-Germany.
As long as Germany is on board with the project the 4 freedoms will be inviolable and countries that want to be part of it have to accept that. The 'negotiations' are delusional, demoralising and potentially dangerous, as we can see with the EU's plan to annex Northern Ireland if they cannot get their way.
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But of course there is a soft Brexit otherwise nobody who wants a hard Brexit will be bothered by what Corbyn said this week. His position is to leave the EU!
It does not matter what Corbyn or May want-it is what the EU is prepared to give that matters. They will not allow the UK to flout the four freedoms. That has been crystal clear from the start.
Not according to all the Brexiteers it hasn't. I think we should term them as cake and eat it merchants!
Yet you're happy for Corbyn to do that exact same thing?
Corbyn and Labour have moved to support membership of the Customs Union. They would like a say in new FTAs but that is clearly up for negotiation. Their position is an entirely legitimate one for the opposition to take. One can call it opportunist and populist but at the same time it is logical and popular. Basic common sense compared to the ramblings of Fox and Johnson.
Some want Labour to go further vis a vis the single market but the next move is May's speech on Friday.
Comments
Greece is a great example of how simplistic some people view things. They say great that an austerity Greece can never get out of is imposed on it - It deserves it! But the reality is that it is a punishment which means Greece will pay back less of what it owes and its people will suffer more. Great again, let the bastards suffer - that is sadly how a lot of people think! Now this is an argument against the EU policy makers - but the people who hold this view are more likely to be in the Brexit camp. We had a polar opposite referendum campaign were Brexit was perfect and the EU was perfect, when the reality was always the EU was far from perfect, but Brexit was idiotic. Just from the perspective of pragmatic self interest.
Of course the Brexiteers were allowed to lie through their teeth so as a result pro- remainers had to big up the EU rather than admit its faults. It was a crazy referendum that degenerated into Xenophobia and led do the death of an exceptional young woman.
...and with that it's night from me.
To be fair you probably have not listened to his entire speech, which is some 40 minutes - and the Q&A afterwards is almost as good. So why don't you give that a whirl, and get back to us tomorrow. As a "Remainer", you'll doubtless be reinforced in your views by his clear sighted arguments. Maybe finally you will feel sufficiently emboldened to take on some of the Brexiteer viewpoints on here. Actually, if you do that I will volunteer to shut up all day so I can watch and learn from your craft. That has to be a good deal, surely? :-)
The DUP might buy this but nobody else does.
The rights and wrongs are irrelevant given that the UK have failed to put anything written down in front of M.Barnier.
Bring back Spitting Image says I!
The question is what is the win, what is the goal? My reading and understanding is at a certain level... But we should be aware that we are talking political philosophy as well as political economy.
There will never be a perfect solution but we should all work to restore matters such that Charlton finish above Millwall - that would help bring calm to proceedings.
Just as with dissident Irish Republicans, who, all the evidence also indicates (because they were campaigning amongst their supporters for such a vote), voted for Brexit.
"https://www.ft.com/content/11614614-1ca0-11e8-956a-43db76e69936"
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/27/customs-union-brexit-european-union-eu-turkey?__twitter_impression=true
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/12/nigel-farage-accused-lying-affair-save-brexit/
"Miss Fuller, who also claims the relationship plunged her into depression and self harm, has accused the 56-year-old of dishonesty and hypocrisy.
She told the Mail on Sunday: "Right from the beginning, lying about the affair was a strategy we decided on. We had many conversations about it, even in the past couple of years. He told me I had to keep quiet."
She went on: "Nigel and I both knew we had to keep quiet to save Brexit. We are both liars and hypocrites..."
;-)
Said fall out, I believe, has also happened due to the historical landscape of only having a two party system. I think people have been crying out for alternatives for years, even decades. Unfortunately a number of those people grabbed hold of the first beacon of light that was given to them, no matter how far removed from their current political beliefs that party was. So long as there was some common territory/ground then that was enough for them to dip their toe in to that particular party's world. As time went on these people felt as if they were being attacked by those with differing views (the centre lurchers that also found a new voice decrying anyone that didn't subscribe to this new, relatively wishy-washy and high on delegative leadership and responsibility, political vision) and it only served to embolden and strengthen their resolve and, in some cases, pushed them further away from their previously held positions and in to a more marginalised/unsavoury standpoint.
Is it worth reading parts 1-3?
Now of course there's only one version.
Got it now?
I choose to take no part in it. If that irks you and leads you to make wild assumptions and level accusations against me then you carry on. It affects me not.
I must be the only poster frustrated by this term 'hard', be it brexit or the border. The concept of a soft brexit or border is meaningless it seems to me, and going down that road leads into a new morass of interpretations and 'solutions'.
One reliable and consistent feature of this whole malarkey has been the very admirable nature of the EU, and they seem to simply be waiting for the UK to realise you can't have your cake and eat it too however much of a tantrum it throws.
As Eleanor Roosevelt said "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events and small minds discuss people". What we have here is Millwall and Charlton fans discussing ideas and events. Occasionally the conversation hits a low but so what. There are enough people here from all sides, and enough with personal connections to Ireland to make this quite illuminating. (For those who don't know my wife's family is from County Claire and she was brought up in Limerick)
As posted before the centre left is somewhat troubled and have been since the crash. On Sunday we will see the outcome of Italian elections plus the SPD membership vote on whether to go into coalition with Merkel. The result of those two decisions will surely affect the ability of Macron and others to lead a drive towards Eurozone Mk2. And that in turn will have the same discussions about economic benefits, gini coefficient and the democratic deficit plus sovereignty of course.
The part of the puzzle I don't understand is the effects of QE - i.e., the ability of nations or the eurozone to print money. When you add that to new technologies such as blockchain and crypto currencies (run by states and not faceless individuals) then we are moving rapidly into uncharted waters which surely require new approaches to philosophy and the political economy.
I agree with almost everything you say here. I heard Blair on the radio this morning saying that he is going to ask the EU to change its immigration policies to allow the UK to stay in.
Whether he is sincere or not, he also does not seem to understand that the EU is a political as well as an economic project. Its end goal is a federal Europe, however long and tortuous that journey may be. It will not change its direction to suit the requirements of any one of its members, except the most important one-Germany.
As long as Germany is on board with the project the 4 freedoms will be inviolable and countries that want to be part of it have to accept that. The 'negotiations' are delusional, demoralising and potentially dangerous, as we can see with the EU's plan to annex Northern Ireland if they cannot get their way.
I agree with almost everything you say here. I heard Blair on the radio this morning saying that he is going to ask the EU to change its immigration policies to allow the UK to stay in.
Whether he is sincere or not, he also does not seem to understand that the EU is a political as well as an economic project. Its end goal is a federal Europe, however long and tortuous that journey may be. It will not change its direction to suit the requirements of any one of its members, except the most important one-Germany.
As long as Germany is on board with the project the 4 freedoms will be inviolable and countries that want to be part of it have to accept that. The 'negotiations' are delusional, demoralising and potentially dangerous, as we can see with the EU's plan to annex Northern Ireland if they cannot get their way.
Some want Labour to go further vis a vis the single market but the next move is May's speech on Friday.