I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
That's the policy that was agreed at the Labour Party Conference in September - not something that "has hardened significantly in the past few days".
On this issue the Conference resolution said:
"Should Parliament vote down a Tory Brexit deal or the talks end in no-deal, Conference believes this would constitute a loss of confidence in the Government. In these circumstances, the best outcome for the country is an immediate General Election that can sweep the Tories from power.
If we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote. If the Government is confident in negotiating a deal that working people, our economy and communities will benefit from they should not be afraid to put that deal to the public".
The full text of that agreed Conference policy is here:
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
So their position has remained the same and they do not support all options. Non story surely ? If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain. Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
What is a "good deal" though? Specifically, can you - or anyone - articulate a deal that isn't worse, economically, than staying in?
The economic benefits of Brexit by a Remainer economist.
Brexit will take a heavy toll, but could herald an economic rebirth
Wages are already going up due to the fall in immigration. Do any of you Remainers really believe that is a bad thing? Cheap labour discourages innovation and maintains low productivity. Anybody believe that is a good thing?
Fintan O'Toole's latest from the Irish Times (paywall), in case anyone is interested, as usual there are a few well worded turns of phrase:
Brexit ultras haven’t the guts to do the only logical thing
A truly patriotic politician would now ask the British people again if this is what they really want
In Ambrose Bierce’s The Devil’s Dictionary, published in 1911, we find the following definition: “Road, n. A strip of land along which one may pass from where it is too tiresome to be to where it is futile to go.”
A pithy summary of the draft UK withdrawal deal from the EU, which was finally published this week, might be: “Brexit, n. A meandering road from where the British found it too tiresome for them to be to where it is futile for them to go.” The deal spells out what Brexit actually looks like: second-class membership of the European Union.
Faced at last with this reality, Britain has three options. It can retrace its steps and return to the ordinary tedium of EU membership and with it to its true status as a prosperous but unexceptional European country.
It can carry on towards the futility of a new arrangement patently worse than what it already has. Or it can wander off the road altogether, into the unmapped and treacherous mire of a no-deal Brexit.
Or, perhaps, there is a fourth option: it can stand in the middle of the road and, like the lisping Violet Elizabeth Bott in Richmal Compton’s great (and terribly English) Just William stories, declare “I’ll thcream and thcream ’till I’m thick”.
As all hell broke loose on Thursday morning as it became ever clearer that Brexit has created a vacuum of political authority in the UK. Theresa May, in her stoical and stolid way, has tried to fill it by leading her country towards a realisation that there is no happy ending to this story, just a painful resignation to the least worst outcome.
But it looks like she will be drowned out by the Violet Elizabeths who believe that, if they scream and scream until they are sick, they will get their way in the end.
The strange thing about this moment is that it has been coming for almost a year. On the morning of Friday, December 7th,2017, when the agreed draft of the withdrawal agreement was released after late-night talks in Brussels, I wrote about what it meant.
It was not full of dazzling insight, merely a statement of the obvious logic of what had been agreed: “After one of the most fraught fortnights in the recent history of Anglo-Irish relations, Ireland has just done Britain a favour of historic dimensions. It has saved it from the madness of a hard Brexit. There is a great irony here: the problem that the Brexiteers most relentlessly ignored has come to determine the entire shape of their project. By standing firm against their attempts to bully, cajole and blame it, Ireland has shifted Brexit towards a soft outcome. It is now far more likely that Britain will stay in the customs union and the single market. It is also more likely that Brexit will not in fact happen.”
Same words The reasoning here was pretty basic. Theresa May had agreed that, in order to avoid a hard border, “in the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South co-operation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement”.
These are the very same words, albeit in a slightly different order, that appeared in the final draft agreement released on Wednesday night. They are the kernel of the whole deal, and they were there in black and white almost a year ago.
Their meaning was not obscure: barring the magical solutions that the Brexiteers kept promising, the same rules of the Single Market and the Customs Union would continue to operate on both sides of the Irish Border.
But May had also agreed, to appease the DUP, that “the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom”.
You didn’t need to be very good at mathematics to see what this meant: if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C. If Northern Ireland is fully aligned to an EU member state (the Republic of Ireland), and Britain is very closely aligned with Northern Ireland, then Britain must remain very closely aligned with the EU.
In other words, the Brexiteers could posture all they liked about “global Britain” and the fabulous trade deals with the rest of the world that awaited them after the great leap out of the EU. But unless and until they could make these airy fantasies real, what Brexit actually means is a rather dismal and decidedly humdrum half-in/half-out existence to be maintained for an indefinite period and exited only if and when the EU agrees.
This in turn raised two big questions.
First, could the Brexiteers in fact come up with some other solution?
After all, two of their leaders Boris Johnson and David Davis were then senior members of Theresa May’s cabinet (though you would not know it from his subsequent complaints, Davis was actually in charge of the Brexit negotiations).
Since they had signed up to this deal in December, it seemed safe to assume that they knew what it meant and that they had a plan to avoid this backstop ever being used. The backstop is just an insurance policy – just because you have fire insurance you don’t let your house burn down. The key words then were “in the absence of agreed solutions” – or, as this week’s final draft has it, “unless and until an alternative arrangement implementing another scenario is agreed”.
This was a straightforward challenge to the Brexiteers: come up with some other way of achieving the same aims and they could render the backstop entirely irrelevant.
Glorious dream The second big question was: is it worth it?
If they could not come up with some other way of dealing with the Irish Border question, the British were placing themselves in a position that is, from any point of view, frankly weird. They must bind themselves to the EU’s rules, not just as they exist at the time of Brexit in March 2019 but on a “dynamic” basis, meaning they would have to adopt all the new ones as they came in.
But they would have no say in the making of those rules. The glorious dream of a Great Escape from Brussels regulation would be over but the UK would not even enjoy its current status as a full and equal member of the EU.
Words like “vassalage”, “slave state” and “colony” – all thrown out by Brexiteers (and indeed by Remainers) this week – are as ridiculously over-the-top as all of the Brexit’s rhetoric has been. But there is no doubt that the whole exercise would amount to swapping first-class membership for the second class status of a satellite locked into the orbit of Planet Europe.
Hence, it seemed obvious last December that it had become “more likely that Brexit will not in fact happen”. No one with his or her country’s interests at heart would wish it to go on the futile journey towards such a mediocre destiny.
To understand how we got to where we are this week, we have to grasp what happened to these two big questions over the last year: bugger all.
First, it became clear that Johnson, Davis and their allies simply didn’t understand what they had signed up to, either in its form as a solemn international agreement that could not simply be torn up, or in its content and implications.
But even as the light of reality slowly pierced their mental fogs, they did nothing except complain about it. As the negotiations wound on and on, apparently going nowhere fast, it became clear that they had much more time to think and act than anyone had imagined this time last year.
All they did with that time was to waste it – and indeed by making it more and more difficult for May to negotiate with a clear mandate, to waste everybody else’s time too.
On the first question – the alternative solution that would render the backstop irrelevant – we know what the hard Brexiteers have repeatedly said they want: a glorious Canada-style free trade deal between the EU and the UK that would deliver frictionless trade all round, including of course on the island of Ireland.
But there was and is an obvious problem with this: a Canada-style deal would not in fact get rid of the need for a hard Irish border. Very substantial regulatory checks would still be needed. The UK would be outside the Customs Union and the Single Market, and the Republic would be inside.
Technological solution You can’t move between different customs and market regimes without checks. And the only theoretical solution therefore would be to make those checks digital rather than physical.
So the hard Brexiteers, to save their dream, had the best part of a year to come up with a serious proposal for what this technological solution would be and how it would work.
Here, then, is the House of Commons select committee on Northern Ireland, after extensive hearings on the issue, reporting in March this year: “We have had no visibility of any technical solutions, anywhere in the world, beyond the aspirational, that would remove the need for physical infrastructure at the border. We recommend the Government bring forward detailed proposals, without further delay, that set out how it will maintain an open and invisible border. These proposals should provide detail about how customs compliance will be enforced if there is regulatory and tariff divergence between the UK and Ireland.”
At that time, Davis and Johnson were still members of the government to whom this recommendation was addressed by their own parliament. They were being asked to tell the House of Commons and the world precisely how their preferred technological solutions would move “beyond the aspirational”.
The best that Johnson ever came up with was his fatuous suggestion that the Irish border could be managed like the congestion charge in London.
So, there are really only two possibilities. Either there are no magical technological solutions and they were just fig leaves for a naked disregard of the implications of Brexit for Northern Ireland. Or there are such solutions but the Brexiteers are too lazy to come up with them – even when their epic dreams of freedom from the EU are at stake.
As for the wider question – is it worth it? – things have taken an even more extraordinary turn. In his resignation letter in July, Boris Johnson wrote to May that “we appear to be heading for a semi-Brexit, with large parts of the economy still locked in the EU system, but with no UK control over that system”.
This was for once, entirely accurate. His further claim that “we are truly headed for the status of colony – and many will struggle to see the economic or political advantages of that particular arrangement” was typically inflated, but let’s assume, since he has repeated it this week, that he meant it.
What Johnson was saying was that his country was heading towards an arrangement that, as he explicitly put it more recently, is “substantially worse than staying in the EU”.
Inexorable logic What would any patriot do in these circumstances? Johnson’s younger brother Jo drew the obvious conclusion: go back to the people and ask them if this is what they really want.
But neither Boris nor any of the leading Brexit ultras has had the guts to follow this inexorable logic. They know they have led the UK towards a position that is “substantially worse” than its current status. But they will neither accept responsibility for this nor support the only thing that could prevent it: a second referendum.
It is easier to keep pretending that, if only May had stuck it to the Europeans in the negotiations, the perfect have-cake/eat-cake Brexit would have been delivered. The critique of May by the Brexiteers is based on the old British rule for how to behave with the continentals: if they don’t understand your language, shout louder: “GIVE . . . US . . . CAKE!”
It is easier to scream and scream until everybody is sick than to reflect on how and why the British public was sold a fantasy Brexit that had no possibility of ever becoming real.
Let them scream.
And let responsible and patriotic politicians repeat over and over the five words that lie beneath each one of the 500-plus pages of the draft withdrawal deal: it is not worth it. The destination is not what it looked like in the travel agents’ glossy brochures, all sunlit uplands and lush green pastures. It is grey and grim and horribly provincial.
Why not, before the flight takes off, turn around and go home?
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
So their position has remained the same and they do not support all options. Non story surely ? If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain. Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
What is a "good deal" though? Specifically, can you - or anyone - articulate a deal that isn't worse, economically, than staying in?
The economic benefits of Brexit by a Remainer economist.
Brexit will take a heavy toll, but could herald an economic rebirth
Wages are already going up due to the fall in immigration. Do any of you Remainers really believe that is a bad thing? Cheap labour discourages innovation and maintains low productivity. Anybody believe that is a good thing?
This is flat out completely untrue.
Pretty sure it is true actually... Certainly innovation and technology can replace much low skilled work. It's technology that drives productivity growth.
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
So their position has remained the same and they do not support all options. Non story surely ? If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain. Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
What is a "good deal" though? Specifically, can you - or anyone - articulate a deal that isn't worse, economically, than staying in?
The economic benefits of Brexit by a Remainer economist.
Brexit will take a heavy toll, but could herald an economic rebirth
Wages are already going up due to the fall in immigration. Do any of you Remainers really believe that is a bad thing? Cheap labour discourages innovation and maintains low productivity. Anybody believe that is a good thing?
Has there actually been a fall in immigration? I thought there was just a swing towards non EU immigration. Higher wages indicate a shortage of labour which will result in more immigration whether we are in the EU or not!
So higher wages are not a good thing, just checking.
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
So their position has remained the same and they do not support all options. Non story surely ? If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain. Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
What is a "good deal" though? Specifically, can you - or anyone - articulate a deal that isn't worse, economically, than staying in?
The economic benefits of Brexit by a Remainer economist.
Brexit will take a heavy toll, but could herald an economic rebirth
Wages are already going up due to the fall in immigration. Do any of you Remainers really believe that is a bad thing? Cheap labour discourages innovation and maintains low productivity. Anybody believe that is a good thing?
Wages are starting to increase because they have been stagnating for TEN years. The Conservative austerity measures dictated that. In the last twelve months or so the workers in the public sector have shown that they were not prepared to put up with austerity and further drops in living standards any longer. The Tories dragged it out as long as they possibly could but have after TEN years had to ease off.
Wages will show at this point a small increase due to labour shortages but that up until now hasn’t really had any impact. I would like to see some evidence to the contrary.
Are you telling me that the NHS has increased nurses money to combat the shortages ? Are care homes paying anything other than minimum wage. Are farmers paying more to seasonal workers ? Now it may well be that happens in some small part going forward but who do you think is going to pay for that ? The answer is you and me.
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
So their position has remained the same and they do not support all options. Non story surely ? If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain. Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
What is a "good deal" though? Specifically, can you - or anyone - articulate a deal that isn't worse, economically, than staying in?
The economic benefits of Brexit by a Remainer economist.
Brexit will take a heavy toll, but could herald an economic rebirth
Wages are already going up due to the fall in immigration. Do any of you Remainers really believe that is a bad thing? Cheap labour discourages innovation and maintains low productivity. Anybody believe that is a good thing?
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
So their position has remained the same and they do not support all options. Non story surely ? If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain. Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
What is a "good deal" though? Specifically, can you - or anyone - articulate a deal that isn't worse, economically, than staying in?
The economic benefits of Brexit by a Remainer economist.
Brexit will take a heavy toll, but could herald an economic rebirth
Wages are already going up due to the fall in immigration. Do any of you Remainers really believe that is a bad thing? Cheap labour discourages innovation and maintains low productivity. Anybody believe that is a good thing?
Wages are starting to increase because they have been stagnating for TEN years. The Conservative austerity measures dictated that. In the last twelve months or so the workers in the public sector have shown that they were not prepared to put up with austerity and further drops in living standards any longer. The Tories dragged it out as long as they possibly could but have after TEN years had to ease off.
Wages will show at this point a small increase due to labour shortages but that up until now hasn’t really had any impact. I would like to see some evidence to the contrary.
Are you telling me that the NHS has increased nurses money to combat the shortages ? Are care homes paying anything other than minimum wage. Are farmers paying more to seasonal workers ? Now it may well be that happens in some small part going forward but who do you think is going to pay for that ? The answer is you and me.
So are you not in favour of higher wages for care workers? The point of the Times article I quoted above (by a Remainer) is that the British economy needs a shake up and Brexit could provide it. Higher productivity means more growth, more money for wages and more resources for the public sector.
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
So their position has remained the same and they do not support all options. Non story surely ? If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain. Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
What is a "good deal" though? Specifically, can you - or anyone - articulate a deal that isn't worse, economically, than staying in?
The economic benefits of Brexit by a Remainer economist.
Brexit will take a heavy toll, but could herald an economic rebirth
Wages are already going up due to the fall in immigration. Do any of you Remainers really believe that is a bad thing? Cheap labour discourages innovation and maintains low productivity. Anybody believe that is a good thing?
Wages going up is more of a factor of us leaving the worst post war financial crisis we have experienced and a wage growth rate of 0.9% after inflation puts us as one of the worst performers in Europe. Potential migrants are staying home because wages are growing better in their home countries.
It has been proven many many times that immigration has little to no effect on wage growth and arguments have been made that migration into low-skilled jobs actually helps the natives by freeing up the workforce into higher-paid jobs.
You have posted a fact an drawn a completely false conclusion. As you always do.
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
So their position has remained the same and they do not support all options. Non story surely ? If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain. Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
What is a "good deal" though? Specifically, can you - or anyone - articulate a deal that isn't worse, economically, than staying in?
The economic benefits of Brexit by a Remainer economist.
Brexit will take a heavy toll, but could herald an economic rebirth
Wages are already going up due to the fall in immigration. Do any of you Remainers really believe that is a bad thing? Cheap labour discourages innovation and maintains low productivity. Anybody believe that is a good thing?
Wages are starting to increase because they have been stagnating for TEN years. The Conservative austerity measures dictated that. In the last twelve months or so the workers in the public sector have shown that they were not prepared to put up with austerity and further drops in living standards any longer. The Tories dragged it out as long as they possibly could but have after TEN years had to ease off.
Wages will show at this point a small increase due to labour shortages but that up until now hasn’t really had any impact. I would like to see some evidence to the contrary.
Are you telling me that the NHS has increased nurses money to combat the shortages ? Are care homes paying anything other than minimum wage. Are farmers paying more to seasonal workers ? Now it may well be that happens in some small part going forward but who do you think is going to pay for that ? The answer is you and me.
So are you not in favour of higher wages for care workers? The point of the Times article I quoted above (by a Remainer) is that the British economy needs a shake up and Brexit could provide it. Higher productivity means more growth, more money for wages and more resources for the public sector.
Didn't you report that wages are up because immigration is down? Or are you saying wages are up because of productively and growth? For public sector workers wages are not up looking at the past several years.
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
So their position has remained the same and they do not support all options. Non story surely ? If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain. Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
What is a "good deal" though? Specifically, can you - or anyone - articulate a deal that isn't worse, economically, than staying in?
The economic benefits of Brexit by a Remainer economist.
Brexit will take a heavy toll, but could herald an economic rebirth
Wages are already going up due to the fall in immigration. Do any of you Remainers really believe that is a bad thing? Cheap labour discourages innovation and maintains low productivity. Anybody believe that is a good thing?
Wages are starting to increase because they have been stagnating for TEN years. The Conservative austerity measures dictated that. In the last twelve months or so the workers in the public sector have shown that they were not prepared to put up with austerity and further drops in living standards any longer. The Tories dragged it out as long as they possibly could but have after TEN years had to ease off.
Wages will show at this point a small increase due to labour shortages but that up until now hasn’t really had any impact. I would like to see some evidence to the contrary.
Are you telling me that the NHS has increased nurses money to combat the shortages ? Are care homes paying anything other than minimum wage. Are farmers paying more to seasonal workers ? Now it may well be that happens in some small part going forward but who do you think is going to pay for that ? The answer is you and me.
So are you not in favour of higher wages for care workers? The point of the Times article I quoted above (by a Remainer) is that the British economy needs a shake up and Brexit could provide it. Higher productivity means more growth, more money for wages and more resources for the public sector.
Personally I think higher wages are a good thing (especially for nurses) but I've heard many right wing politicians and economists argue that they aren't as they drive up costs, cause unemployment etc.
But you have said that you basis for voting leave has never been economic but democratic while the article says that brexit "could" give the economy a boost. It could also give a kick in the balls.
Also the BBC article is ambiguous and doesn't really support your argument, not a least in the long term.
"Compared with a year earlier, wages excluding bonuses, rose by 3.2% - the biggest rise since the end of 2008 and up slightly on the previous quarter.
However, the ONS warned that real wage growth was below the 2015 level.
The unemployment total went up for the first time this year, rising by 21,000 in the same period to 1.38 million.
What is happening to wages? Compared with a year ago and adjusting for inflation, average weekly earnings increased by 0.9%. That figure excludes bonuses.
"With faster wage growth and more subdued inflation, real earnings have picked up noticeably in the last few months," ONS senior statistician Matt Hughes said.
Firms 'struggling to recruit as overseas staff stay away' But Samuel Tombs, an economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, says wages will "struggle" to accelerate much further.
"Flows of people out of self-employment and into employee roles have remained strong, ensuring that record-high job vacancies don't lead to spiralling wage growth," he said.
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
So their position has remained the same and they do not support all options. Non story surely ? If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain. Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
What is a "good deal" though? Specifically, can you - or anyone - articulate a deal that isn't worse, economically, than staying in?
The economic benefits of Brexit by a Remainer economist.
Brexit will take a heavy toll, but could herald an economic rebirth
Wages are already going up due to the fall in immigration. Do any of you Remainers really believe that is a bad thing? Cheap labour discourages innovation and maintains low productivity. Anybody believe that is a good thing?
Has there actually been a fall in immigration? I thought there was just a swing towards non EU immigration. Higher wages indicate a shortage of labour which will result in more immigration whether we are in the EU or not!
So higher wages are not a good thing, just checking.
OK- higher wages resulting from productivity improvements are usually a good thing overall.
Higher wages resulting from labour shortages are not sustainable and result in inflation or immigration. (Not necessarily a bad thing!)
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
So their position has remained the same and they do not support all options. Non story surely ? If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain. Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
What is a "good deal" though? Specifically, can you - or anyone - articulate a deal that isn't worse, economically, than staying in?
The economic benefits of Brexit by a Remainer economist.
Brexit will take a heavy toll, but could herald an economic rebirth
Wages are already going up due to the fall in immigration. Do any of you Remainers really believe that is a bad thing? Cheap labour discourages innovation and maintains low productivity. Anybody believe that is a good thing?
Wages are starting to increase because they have been stagnating for TEN years. The Conservative austerity measures dictated that. In the last twelve months or so the workers in the public sector have shown that they were not prepared to put up with austerity and further drops in living standards any longer. The Tories dragged it out as long as they possibly could but have after TEN years had to ease off.
Wages will show at this point a small increase due to labour shortages but that up until now hasn’t really had any impact. I would like to see some evidence to the contrary.
Are you telling me that the NHS has increased nurses money to combat the shortages ? Are care homes paying anything other than minimum wage. Are farmers paying more to seasonal workers ? Now it may well be that happens in some small part going forward but who do you think is going to pay for that ? The answer is you and me.
So are you not in favour of higher wages for care workers? The point of the Times article I quoted above (by a Remainer) is that the British economy needs a shake up and Brexit could provide it. Higher productivity means more growth, more money for wages and more resources for the public sector.
It’s a damnable disgrace that there has to be a minimum wage. Having said that it’s a mute point as far as care home workers are concerned. We have had according to brexit central hundreds of thousands of Eastern European’s working here in that and other sectors and yet there is still a shortage and still on minimum wages. I know because my sister in law who lives in Torquay is a care home worker. Now if the Eastern European’s desert what then ? In your world we will see the care home industry increase wages to attract the staff ? What staff ? They are not there with migrant workers and they still won’t be there when the bulk of them return home. What increase in wages do you think it might take to address this. Currently £7.83 an hour for over 25’s. The care sector is already in crisis and as a nation we can’t afford to look after our old people. A couple of quid as a carrot to attract staff will be passed on to those needing care, their families and the state. A Brexit dividend ? You can move the same argument to fruit and vegetable pickers. You fruit and veg will be more expensive and that’s if we can find anybody to pick it.
It’s a bit more complex than the argument you put forward.
Southbank is right on one thing, Brexit has been great for jobs.
Specifically, the 1000s of jobs moved from London to Dublin by Barclays and JP Morgan, and the 1000s of jobs in the local economy that will be created due to the influx of highly skilled workers.
More people on the dole, more homeless, more people forced to use foodbanks in London though. Worth it to support the undemocratic and illegal Leave and pro-Putin campaign, eh Southbank?
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
So their position has remained the same and they do not support all options. Non story surely ? If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain. Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
What is a "good deal" though? Specifically, can you - or anyone - articulate a deal that isn't worse, economically, than staying in?
We've had 500 pages of this, so there's no point going over old ground ad infinitum.
However, I suspect many Brexiteers were happy to accept a deal where we may be slightly worse off economically in the short/medium term, in exchange for having more more control over our laws and borders. I suspect very few believed we would be better off economically in the short term.
Perhaps like changing jobs, where your pay is a little worse, but you feel much happier and get far greater satisfaction.
I love your analogy. But, to make it slightly more accurate, it's like some people deciding to change jobs to a position where they earn less money, but feel "happier" AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY HAVING TO DO SO AS WELL.
But, you've slightly misunderstood my question. You have said you don't trust any politician to get a good deal (I agree, for what it's worth). But my question was, what is a good deal? "No deal" is a disaster; the majority of people seem to think that the current agreement (aka "Chequers") is a bad deal. So, what is the deal that you think is better than the current one?
(I agree with you, wholeheartedly, that Brexit will be economically bad for the UK, by the way).
I think there is a lot more honour in resigning if you don't think you can support the deal, than to do what Andrea Leadsom is doing now, ie gathering together some other, less-than-gruntled ministers and cobbling together a version two, while, at the same time, nominally agreeing with the original proposed agreement.
If you sit in Cabinet and agree with it, fine. If you sit in Cabinet and don't agree with it, then argue your case in Cabinet. If you still don't get your way, then do the right thing and resign. Don't nod your agreement and then scuttle off with your other, put out friends, and hope to re-write a 500-page, two-years-in-the-making agreement and pretend that has any semblance of credence, authority or weight.
What good does a newly-drafted agreement do? We will have version 1 which the Government and the EU approve and version two which they don't.
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
So their position has remained the same and they do not support all options. Non story surely ? If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain. Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
What is a "good deal" though? Specifically, can you - or anyone - articulate a deal that isn't worse, economically, than staying in?
We've had 500 pages of this, so there's no point going over old ground ad infinitum.
However, I suspect many Brexiteers were happy to accept a deal where we may be slightly worse off economically in the short/medium term, in exchange for having more more control over our laws and borders. I suspect very few believed we would be better off economically in the short term.
Perhaps like changing jobs, where your pay is a little worse, but you feel much happier and get far greater satisfaction.
I love your analogy. But, to make it slightly more accurate, it's like some people deciding to change jobs to a position where they earn less money, but feel "happier" AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY HAVING TO DO SO AS WELL.
But, you've slightly misunderstood my question. You have said you don't trust any politician to get a good deal (I agree, for what it's worth). But my question was, what is a good deal? "No deal" is a disaster; the majority of people seem to think that the current agreement (aka "Chequers") is a bad deal. So, what is the deal that you think is better than the current one?
(I agree with you, wholeheartedly, that Brexit will be economically bad for the UK, by the way).
I don't think there is a better deal than the current one.
I think we should vote again and this time perhaps, the government will not treat the matter as a foregone conclusion.
The government should vigorously campaign to remain, backed up by a multitude of facts and figures.
The leaflets delivered to everyone's home should be regionalised, so that in let's say Sunderland the threat to their car production should be spelt out in bold etc etc.
They need to play more on the patriotic thing to do is to vote remain, because the only other option would mean we have less power and ergo less sovereignty.
They need to state clearly that the Brexiters dream is not achievable and fully expose the likes of Boris Johnson for their deceit, by showing all the clips of what they have said, which was not true.
If they ran a decent campaign, the result really should be a vote to remain and would have been last time.
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
So their position has remained the same and they do not support all options. Non story surely ? If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain. Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
What is a "good deal" though? Specifically, can you - or anyone - articulate a deal that isn't worse, economically, than staying in?
The economic benefits of Brexit by a Remainer economist.
Brexit will take a heavy toll, but could herald an economic rebirth
I think there is a lot more honour in resigning if you don't think you can support the deal, than to do what Andrea Leadsom is doing now, ie gathering together some other, less-than-gruntled ministers and cobbling together a version two, while, at the same time, nominally agreeing with the original proposed agreement.
If you sit in Cabinet and agree with it, fine. If you sit in Cabinet and don't agree with it, then argue your case in Cabinet. If you still don't get your way, then do the right thing and resign. Don't nod your agreement and then scuttle off with your other, put out friends, and hope to re-write a 500-page, two-years-in-the-making agreement and pretend that has any semblance of credence, authority or weight.
What good does a newly-drafted agreement do? We will have version 1 which the Government and the EU approve and version two which they don't.
Stupid woman.
Leadsom, like Mogg, is more interested in looking after the interests of her extended family’s hedge funds and ‘oversea’s investments’. Doesn’t give a shit about the country as a whole.
I think there is a lot more honour in resigning if you don't think you can support the deal, than to do what Andrea Leadsom is doing now, ie gathering together some other, less-than-gruntled ministers and cobbling together a version two, while, at the same time, nominally agreeing with the original proposed agreement.
If you sit in Cabinet and agree with it, fine. If you sit in Cabinet and don't agree with it, then argue your case in Cabinet. If you still don't get your way, then do the right thing and resign. Don't nod your agreement and then scuttle off with your other, put out friends, and hope to re-write a 500-page, two-years-in-the-making agreement and pretend that has any semblance of credence, authority or weight.
What good does a newly-drafted agreement do? We will have version 1 which the Government and the EU approve and version two which they don't.
Stupid woman.
Ledsome, like Mogg, is more interested in looking after the interests of her extended family’s hedge funds and ‘oversea’s investments’. Doesn’t give a shit about the country as a whole.
I have no reason to say this is untrue, but can anyone show me that JRM and Leadsom, would be better off financially if we Brexit. I've heard it said many times, but that is all.
I think there is a lot more honour in resigning if you don't think you can support the deal, than to do what Andrea Leadsom is doing now, ie gathering together some other, less-than-gruntled ministers and cobbling together a version two, while, at the same time, nominally agreeing with the original proposed agreement.
If you sit in Cabinet and agree with it, fine. If you sit in Cabinet and don't agree with it, then argue your case in Cabinet. If you still don't get your way, then do the right thing and resign. Don't nod your agreement and then scuttle off with your other, put out friends, and hope to re-write a 500-page, two-years-in-the-making agreement and pretend that has any semblance of credence, authority or weight.
What good does a newly-drafted agreement do? We will have version 1 which the Government and the EU approve and version two which they don't.
Stupid woman.
Ledsome, like Mogg, is more interested in looking after the interests of her extended family’s hedge funds and ‘oversea’s investments’. Doesn’t give a shit about the country as a whole.
I have no reason to say this is untrue, but can anyone show me that JRM and Leadsom, would be better off financially if we Brexit. I've heard it said many times, but that is all.
Southbank is right on one thing, Brexit has been great for jobs.
Specifically, the 1000s of jobs moved from London to Dublin by Barclays and JP Morgan, and the 1000s of jobs in the local economy that will be created due to the influx of highly skilled workers.
More people on the dole, more homeless, more people forced to use foodbanks in London though. Worth it to support the undemocratic and illegal Leave and pro-Putin campaign, eh Southbank?
I think there is a lot more honour in resigning if you don't think you can support the deal, than to do what Andrea Leadsom is doing now, ie gathering together some other, less-than-gruntled ministers and cobbling together a version two, while, at the same time, nominally agreeing with the original proposed agreement.
If you sit in Cabinet and agree with it, fine. If you sit in Cabinet and don't agree with it, then argue your case in Cabinet. If you still don't get your way, then do the right thing and resign. Don't nod your agreement and then scuttle off with your other, put out friends, and hope to re-write a 500-page, two-years-in-the-making agreement and pretend that has any semblance of credence, authority or weight.
What good does a newly-drafted agreement do? We will have version 1 which the Government and the EU approve and version two which they don't.
Stupid woman.
Ledsome, like Mogg, is more interested in looking after the interests of her extended family’s hedge funds and ‘oversea’s investments’. Doesn’t give a shit about the country as a whole.
I have no reason to say this is untrue, but can anyone show me that JRM and Leadsom, would be better off financially if we Brexit. I've heard it said many times, but that is all.
As well as @randy andy’s links above Private Eye, in particular, have constant stories on the pair and their financial shenanigans. The fact that Leadsom has reached the level of Cabinet Minister shows just how low the bar is currently.
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
Apologies it was a late night quick post. A lengthy email apparently went out to all party members that was all about hardening Labour's position around remain, another vote, a soft Brexit. I haven't seen it (not a party member) but wondered if anybody else has.
Just catching up on this thread so apologies if somebody has updated from this morning.
I think there is a lot more honour in resigning if you don't think you can support the deal, than to do what Andrea Leadsom is doing now, ie gathering together some other, less-than-gruntled ministers and cobbling together a version two, while, at the same time, nominally agreeing with the original proposed agreement.
If you sit in Cabinet and agree with it, fine. If you sit in Cabinet and don't agree with it, then argue your case in Cabinet. If you still don't get your way, then do the right thing and resign. Don't nod your agreement and then scuttle off with your other, put out friends, and hope to re-write a 500-page, two-years-in-the-making agreement and pretend that has any semblance of credence, authority or weight.
What good does a newly-drafted agreement do? We will have version 1 which the Government and the EU approve and version two which they don't.
Stupid woman.
Ledsome, like Mogg, is more interested in looking after the interests of her extended family’s hedge funds and ‘oversea’s investments’. Doesn’t give a shit about the country as a whole.
I have no reason to say this is untrue, but can anyone show me that JRM and Leadsom, would be better off financially if we Brexit. I've heard it said many times, but that is all.
Thanks for taking the trouble, but I didn't view the ft article, as I don't want an account.
The Guardian article I read, but even as an ex Financial Adviser, I'm not sure what that article proves re JRM and Leadsom. It may very well be that they will profit financially from a Brexit, but can you explain how ?
I also wonder why the "City" desperately wants to remain if they can make so much money from Brexit ?
I think there is a lot more honour in resigning if you don't think you can support the deal, than to do what Andrea Leadsom is doing now, ie gathering together some other, less-than-gruntled ministers and cobbling together a version two, while, at the same time, nominally agreeing with the original proposed agreement.
If you sit in Cabinet and agree with it, fine. If you sit in Cabinet and don't agree with it, then argue your case in Cabinet. If you still don't get your way, then do the right thing and resign. Don't nod your agreement and then scuttle off with your other, put out friends, and hope to re-write a 500-page, two-years-in-the-making agreement and pretend that has any semblance of credence, authority or weight.
What good does a newly-drafted agreement do? We will have version 1 which the Government and the EU approve and version two which they don't.
Stupid woman.
Ledsome, like Mogg, is more interested in looking after the interests of her extended family’s hedge funds and ‘oversea’s investments’. Doesn’t give a shit about the country as a whole.
I have no reason to say this is untrue, but can anyone show me that JRM and Leadsom, would be better off financially if we Brexit. I've heard it said many times, but that is all.
Thanks for taking the trouble, but I didn't view the ft article, as I don't want an account.
The Guardian article I read, but even as an ex Financial Adviser, I'm not sure what that article proves re JRM and Leadsom. It may very well be that they will profit financially from a Brexit, but can you explain how ?
I also wonder why the "City" desperately wants to remain if they can make so much money from Brexit ?
Genuine questions.
In my conversations with City people they are not in general bothered either way. Money is the most fungible thing and does not generally get affected much by borders. Some of them certainly see opportunities outside EU regulation. It is manufacturing, which represents about 10% of our economy, which is jumping up and down the most.
Comments
On this issue the Conference resolution said:
"Should Parliament vote down a Tory Brexit deal or the talks end in no-deal, Conference believes this would constitute a loss of confidence in the Government. In these circumstances, the best outcome for the country is an immediate General Election that can sweep the Tories from power.
If we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote. If the Government is confident in negotiating a deal that working people, our economy and communities will benefit from they should not be afraid to put that deal to the public".
The full text of that agreed Conference policy is here:
https://labourlist.org/2018/09/labours-brexit-composite-motion-in-full/
Brexit ultras haven’t the guts to do the only logical thing
A truly patriotic politician would now ask the British people again if this is what they really want
In Ambrose Bierce’s The Devil’s Dictionary, published in 1911, we find the following definition: “Road, n. A strip of land along which one may pass from where it is too tiresome to be to where it is futile to go.”
A pithy summary of the draft UK withdrawal deal from the EU, which was finally published this week, might be: “Brexit, n. A meandering road from where the British found it too tiresome for them to be to where it is futile for them to go.” The deal spells out what Brexit actually looks like: second-class membership of the European Union.
Faced at last with this reality, Britain has three options. It can retrace its steps and return to the ordinary tedium of EU membership and with it to its true status as a prosperous but unexceptional European country.
It can carry on towards the futility of a new arrangement patently worse than what it already has. Or it can wander off the road altogether, into the unmapped and treacherous mire of a no-deal Brexit.
Or, perhaps, there is a fourth option: it can stand in the middle of the road and, like the lisping Violet Elizabeth Bott in Richmal Compton’s great (and terribly English) Just William stories, declare “I’ll thcream and thcream ’till I’m thick”.
As all hell broke loose on Thursday morning as it became ever clearer that Brexit has created a vacuum of political authority in the UK. Theresa May, in her stoical and stolid way, has tried to fill it by leading her country towards a realisation that there is no happy ending to this story, just a painful resignation to the least worst outcome.
But it looks like she will be drowned out by the Violet Elizabeths who believe that, if they scream and scream until they are sick, they will get their way in the end.
The strange thing about this moment is that it has been coming for almost a year. On the morning of Friday, December 7th,2017, when the agreed draft of the withdrawal agreement was released after late-night talks in Brussels, I wrote about what it meant.
It was not full of dazzling insight, merely a statement of the obvious logic of what had been agreed: “After one of the most fraught fortnights in the recent history of Anglo-Irish relations, Ireland has just done Britain a favour of historic dimensions. It has saved it from the madness of a hard Brexit. There is a great irony here: the problem that the Brexiteers most relentlessly ignored has come to determine the entire shape of their project. By standing firm against their attempts to bully, cajole and blame it, Ireland has shifted Brexit towards a soft outcome. It is now far more likely that Britain will stay in the customs union and the single market. It is also more likely that Brexit will not in fact happen.”
Same words
The reasoning here was pretty basic. Theresa May had agreed that, in order to avoid a hard border, “in the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South co-operation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement”.
These are the very same words, albeit in a slightly different order, that appeared in the final draft agreement released on Wednesday night. They are the kernel of the whole deal, and they were there in black and white almost a year ago.
Their meaning was not obscure: barring the magical solutions that the Brexiteers kept promising, the same rules of the Single Market and the Customs Union would continue to operate on both sides of the Irish Border.
But May had also agreed, to appease the DUP, that “the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom”.
You didn’t need to be very good at mathematics to see what this meant: if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C. If Northern Ireland is fully aligned to an EU member state (the Republic of Ireland), and Britain is very closely aligned with Northern Ireland, then Britain must remain very closely aligned with the EU.
In other words, the Brexiteers could posture all they liked about “global Britain” and the fabulous trade deals with the rest of the world that awaited them after the great leap out of the EU. But unless and until they could make these airy fantasies real, what Brexit actually means is a rather dismal and decidedly humdrum half-in/half-out existence to be maintained for an indefinite period and exited only if and when the EU agrees.
This in turn raised two big questions.
First, could the Brexiteers in fact come up with some other solution?
After all, two of their leaders Boris Johnson and David Davis were then senior members of Theresa May’s cabinet (though you would not know it from his subsequent complaints, Davis was actually in charge of the Brexit negotiations).
Since they had signed up to this deal in December, it seemed safe to assume that they knew what it meant and that they had a plan to avoid this backstop ever being used. The backstop is just an insurance policy – just because you have fire insurance you don’t let your house burn down. The key words then were “in the absence of agreed solutions” – or, as this week’s final draft has it, “unless and until an alternative arrangement implementing another scenario is agreed”.
This was a straightforward challenge to the Brexiteers: come up with some other way of achieving the same aims and they could render the backstop entirely irrelevant.
Glorious dream
The second big question was: is it worth it?
If they could not come up with some other way of dealing with the Irish Border question, the British were placing themselves in a position that is, from any point of view, frankly weird. They must bind themselves to the EU’s rules, not just as they exist at the time of Brexit in March 2019 but on a “dynamic” basis, meaning they would have to adopt all the new ones as they came in.
But they would have no say in the making of those rules. The glorious dream of a Great Escape from Brussels regulation would be over but the UK would not even enjoy its current status as a full and equal member of the EU.
Words like “vassalage”, “slave state” and “colony” – all thrown out by Brexiteers (and indeed by Remainers) this week – are as ridiculously over-the-top as all of the Brexit’s rhetoric has been. But there is no doubt that the whole exercise would amount to swapping first-class membership for the second class status of a satellite locked into the orbit of Planet Europe.
Hence, it seemed obvious last December that it had become “more likely that Brexit will not in fact happen”. No one with his or her country’s interests at heart would wish it to go on the futile journey towards such a mediocre destiny.
To understand how we got to where we are this week, we have to grasp what happened to these two big questions over the last year: bugger all.
First, it became clear that Johnson, Davis and their allies simply didn’t understand what they had signed up to, either in its form as a solemn international agreement that could not simply be torn up, or in its content and implications.
But even as the light of reality slowly pierced their mental fogs, they did nothing except complain about it. As the negotiations wound on and on, apparently going nowhere fast, it became clear that they had much more time to think and act than anyone had imagined this time last year.
Cont....
All they did with that time was to waste it – and indeed by making it more and more difficult for May to negotiate with a clear mandate, to waste everybody else’s time too.
On the first question – the alternative solution that would render the backstop irrelevant – we know what the hard Brexiteers have repeatedly said they want: a glorious Canada-style free trade deal between the EU and the UK that would deliver frictionless trade all round, including of course on the island of Ireland.
But there was and is an obvious problem with this: a Canada-style deal would not in fact get rid of the need for a hard Irish border. Very substantial regulatory checks would still be needed. The UK would be outside the Customs Union and the Single Market, and the Republic would be inside.
Technological solution
You can’t move between different customs and market regimes without checks. And the only theoretical solution therefore would be to make those checks digital rather than physical.
So the hard Brexiteers, to save their dream, had the best part of a year to come up with a serious proposal for what this technological solution would be and how it would work.
Here, then, is the House of Commons select committee on Northern Ireland, after extensive hearings on the issue, reporting in March this year: “We have had no visibility of any technical solutions, anywhere in the world, beyond the aspirational, that would remove the need for physical infrastructure at the border. We recommend the Government bring forward detailed proposals, without further delay, that set out how it will maintain an open and invisible border. These proposals should provide detail about how customs compliance will be enforced if there is regulatory and tariff divergence between the UK and Ireland.”
At that time, Davis and Johnson were still members of the government to whom this recommendation was addressed by their own parliament. They were being asked to tell the House of Commons and the world precisely how their preferred technological solutions would move “beyond the aspirational”.
The best that Johnson ever came up with was his fatuous suggestion that the Irish border could be managed like the congestion charge in London.
So, there are really only two possibilities. Either there are no magical technological solutions and they were just fig leaves for a naked disregard of the implications of Brexit for Northern Ireland. Or there are such solutions but the Brexiteers are too lazy to come up with them – even when their epic dreams of freedom from the EU are at stake.
As for the wider question – is it worth it? – things have taken an even more extraordinary turn. In his resignation letter in July, Boris Johnson wrote to May that “we appear to be heading for a semi-Brexit, with large parts of the economy still locked in the EU system, but with no UK control over that system”.
This was for once, entirely accurate. His further claim that “we are truly headed for the status of colony – and many will struggle to see the economic or political advantages of that particular arrangement” was typically inflated, but let’s assume, since he has repeated it this week, that he meant it.
What Johnson was saying was that his country was heading towards an arrangement that, as he explicitly put it more recently, is “substantially worse than staying in the EU”.
Inexorable logic
What would any patriot do in these circumstances? Johnson’s younger brother Jo drew the obvious conclusion: go back to the people and ask them if this is what they really want.
But neither Boris nor any of the leading Brexit ultras has had the guts to follow this inexorable logic. They know they have led the UK towards a position that is “substantially worse” than its current status. But they will neither accept responsibility for this nor support the only thing that could prevent it: a second referendum.
It is easier to keep pretending that, if only May had stuck it to the Europeans in the negotiations, the perfect have-cake/eat-cake Brexit would have been delivered. The critique of May by the Brexiteers is based on the old British rule for how to behave with the continentals: if they don’t understand your language, shout louder: “GIVE . . . US . . . CAKE!”
It is easier to scream and scream until everybody is sick than to reflect on how and why the British public was sold a fantasy Brexit that had no possibility of ever becoming real.
Let them scream.
And let responsible and patriotic politicians repeat over and over the five words that lie beneath each one of the 500-plus pages of the draft withdrawal deal: it is not worth it. The destination is not what it looked like in the travel agents’ glossy brochures, all sunlit uplands and lush green pastures. It is grey and grim and horribly provincial.
Why not, before the flight takes off, turn around and go home?
Wages will show at this point a small increase due to labour shortages but that up until now hasn’t really had any impact. I would like to see some evidence to the contrary.
Are you telling me that the NHS has increased nurses money to combat the shortages ? Are care homes paying anything other than minimum wage. Are farmers paying more to seasonal workers ? Now it may well be that happens in some small part going forward but who do you think is going to pay for that ? The answer is you and me.
Fake news from the BBC, FT etc then?
The point of the Times article I quoted above (by a Remainer) is that the British economy needs a shake up and Brexit could provide it. Higher productivity means more growth, more money for wages and more resources for the public sector.
It has been proven many many times that immigration has little to no effect on wage growth and arguments have been made that migration into low-skilled jobs actually helps the natives by freeing up the workforce into higher-paid jobs.
You have posted a fact an drawn a completely false conclusion. As you always do.
Or are you saying wages are up because of productively and growth?
For public sector workers wages are not up looking at the past several years.
But you have said that you basis for voting leave has never been economic but democratic while the article says that brexit "could" give the economy a boost. It could also give a kick in the balls.
Also the BBC article is ambiguous and doesn't really support your argument, not a least in the long term.
"Compared with a year earlier, wages excluding bonuses, rose by 3.2% - the biggest rise since the end of 2008 and up slightly on the previous quarter.
However, the ONS warned that real wage growth was below the 2015 level.
The unemployment total went up for the first time this year, rising by 21,000 in the same period to 1.38 million.
What is happening to wages?
Compared with a year ago and adjusting for inflation, average weekly earnings increased by 0.9%. That figure excludes bonuses.
"With faster wage growth and more subdued inflation, real earnings have picked up noticeably in the last few months," ONS senior statistician Matt Hughes said.
Firms 'struggling to recruit as overseas staff stay away'
But Samuel Tombs, an economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, says wages will "struggle" to accelerate much further.
"Flows of people out of self-employment and into employee roles have remained strong, ensuring that record-high job vacancies don't lead to spiralling wage growth," he said.
Higher wages resulting from labour shortages are not sustainable and result in inflation or immigration. (Not necessarily a bad thing!)
It’s a bit more complex than the argument you put forward.
Specifically, the 1000s of jobs moved from London to Dublin by Barclays and JP Morgan, and the 1000s of jobs in the local economy that will be created due to the influx of highly skilled workers.
More people on the dole, more homeless, more people forced to use foodbanks in London though. Worth it to support the undemocratic and illegal Leave and pro-Putin campaign, eh Southbank?
I love your analogy. But, to make it slightly more accurate, it's like some people deciding to change jobs to a position where they earn less money, but feel "happier" AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY HAVING TO DO SO AS WELL.
But, you've slightly misunderstood my question. You have said you don't trust any politician to get a good deal (I agree, for what it's worth). But my question was, what is a good deal? "No deal" is a disaster; the majority of people seem to think that the current agreement (aka "Chequers") is a bad deal. So, what is the deal that you think is better than the current one?
(I agree with you, wholeheartedly, that Brexit will be economically bad for the UK, by the way).
If you sit in Cabinet and agree with it, fine. If you sit in Cabinet and don't agree with it, then argue your case in Cabinet. If you still don't get your way, then do the right thing and resign. Don't nod your agreement and then scuttle off with your other, put out friends, and hope to re-write a 500-page, two-years-in-the-making agreement and pretend that has any semblance of credence, authority or weight.
What good does a newly-drafted agreement do? We will have version 1 which the Government and the EU approve and version two which they don't.
Stupid woman.
I think we should vote again and this time perhaps, the government will not treat the matter as a foregone conclusion.
The government should vigorously campaign to remain, backed up by a multitude of facts and figures.
The leaflets delivered to everyone's home should be regionalised, so that in let's say Sunderland the threat to their car production should be spelt out in bold etc etc.
They need to play more on the patriotic thing to do is to vote remain, because the only other option would mean we have less power and ergo less sovereignty.
They need to state clearly that the Brexiters dream is not achievable and fully expose the likes of Boris Johnson for their deceit, by showing all the clips of what they have said, which was not true.
If they ran a decent campaign, the result really should be a vote to remain and would have been last time.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/09/brexiters-put-money-offshore-tax-haven
The EU have created a directive making pastoral farmers make cows wear nappies near urban areas.
Just catching up on this thread so apologies if somebody has updated from this morning.
The Guardian article I read, but even as an ex Financial Adviser, I'm not sure what that article proves re JRM and Leadsom.
It may very well be that they will profit financially from a Brexit, but can you explain how ?
I also wonder why the "City" desperately wants to remain if they can make so much money from Brexit ?
Genuine questions.
Some of them certainly see opportunities outside EU regulation.
It is manufacturing, which represents about 10% of our economy, which is jumping up and down the most.