Once again Brexit has become more about the Conservative Party and not Brexit itself. At the point where massive decisions affecting us all for generations should be playing out we are stuck with the Tories tearing themselves apart in full view of the incredulous world with everything on hold until they find a way to move forward.
If ever there was a bunch of more useless self serving cowards in government then I’d like to know who.
it is almost as if we have no effective opposition
What needs to happen is the vote against May needs to be triggered, then May needs to win it. That is important. Then she needs to lose her vote on the plan in the commons. There will be lots of threats and posturing about no deal after that, and then the commons needs to rise - the important people here are going to be the Tory remainers as they are going to have to put the country above their party. That is the route towards Brexit being stopped.
What needs to happen is the vote against May needs to be triggered, then May needs to win it. That is important. Then she needs to lose her vote on the plan in the commons. There will be lots of threats and posturing about no deal after that, and then the commons needs to rise - the important people here are going to be the Tory remainers as they are going to have to put the country above their party. That is the route towards Brexit being stopped.
Yes, it is risky and going down this route increases the risk of no deal - but that is how Brexit will be stopped. It isn't my plan - it is how Brexit can be stopped. At the moment, a fair number of the Tories needed are backing the PM's plan, but faced with a choice of no deal or pushing for a vote of some kind - well then we will see. I'd say we are looking at 5% May's plan going through, 50% no deal, 45% vote and no Brexit.
Yes, it is risky and going down this route increases the risk of no deal - but that is how Brexit will be stopped. It isn't my plan - it is how Brexit can be stopped. At the moment, a fair number of the Tories needed are backing the PM's plan, but faced with a choice of no deal or pushing for a vote of some kind - well then we will see. I'd say we are looking at 5% May's plan going through, 50% no deal, 45% vote and no Brexit.
I’d say May’s plan has a higher chance than that. A lot of Tory MP’s will have had input from their constituency parties over the weekend. I doubt there will be 48 letters. That scenario will give her the upper hand over the nut jobs.
If the May plan gets to the House any vote will in my opinion be a lot closer than people are thinking.
Yes, it is risky and going down this route increases the risk of no deal - but that is how Brexit will be stopped. It isn't my plan - it is how Brexit can be stopped. At the moment, a fair number of the Tories needed are backing the PM's plan, but faced with a choice of no deal or pushing for a vote of some kind - well then we will see. I'd say we are looking at 5% May's plan going through, 50% no deal, 45% vote and no Brexit.
I’d say May’s plan has a higher chance than that. A lot of Tory MP’s will have had input from their constituency parties over the weekend. I doubt there will be 48 letters. That scenario will give her the upper hand over the nut jobs.
If the May plan gets to the House any vote will in my opinion be a lot closer than people are thinking.
Apparently they are two short - the next step will be for a high profile challenger to put their name out there and they will get the two they need. A leadership election that May will win, unless she gets so fed up with it all she resigns, is going to pee off everybody outside the Conservative party.
Yes, it is risky and going down this route increases the risk of no deal - but that is how Brexit will be stopped. It isn't my plan - it is how Brexit can be stopped. At the moment, a fair number of the Tories needed are backing the PM's plan, but faced with a choice of no deal or pushing for a vote of some kind - well then we will see. I'd say we are looking at 5% May's plan going through, 50% no deal, 45% vote and no Brexit.
I’d say May’s plan has a higher chance than that. A lot of Tory MP’s will have had input from their constituency parties over the weekend. I doubt there will be 48 letters. That scenario will give her the upper hand over the nut jobs.
If the May plan gets to the House any vote will in my opinion be a lot closer than people are thinking.
Apparently they are two short - the next step will be for a high profile challenger to put their name out there and they will get the two they need. A leadership election that May will win, unless she gets so fed up with it all she resigns, is going to pee off everybody outside the Conservative party.
I think some of those letters will be withdrawn after the weekend. I don’t see it reaching 48. A high profile challenger ? Johnson, Davis ? Gove ? Risky politically for each of them. Don’t see any one of them putting their head up without the 48 letters. Surely we should know if there is going to be a vote of no confidence by late today, lunchtime tomorrow latest. May will be speaking to the CBI today who it seems are not at all hostile to her plan compared to no deal. A decent performance from her today could start to sway her wavering backbenchers. On paper getting her plan through the HoC looks unlikely and perhaps it is but it won’t be a foregone conclusion.
To be honest - Business will be terrified of no deal and they don't fancy instability either - so May's plan will have its attractions. Stopping Brexit is going to be risky and take weeks.
May is focusing on immigration and her points system for skilled workers while reducing "unskilled" immigration.
She knows this is a vote winner with many members of the public who voted remain and it is something that it is easy to understand and take a stance on.
The legalese of the withdraw agreement is complicated and not exactly clear although very necessary.
So she is "dumbing down" or "get back to basics" depending on your view and pushing the part she knows will appeal to the tory grass roots as well as many traditional labour voters by talking about immigration.
It is nonsense as qualified nurses didn't meet the pay threasehold of the last plan her government suggested and someone has to pick the fruit and do the dirty jobs that most brits don't want to do. The long term solution is to train British people and pay them more so jobs in nursing, care, hospitality, etc are more attractive careers but short termism both in education and from employers blocks that.
Ending Freedom of Movement is bad for this country, it's bad for the British people, and there is absolutely no chance we're going to develop our own. Even now we're as close to possible to full employment (and yes I know a lot of those gig economy jobs are fucking vile)
Ending Freedom of Movement is bad for this country, it's bad for the British people, and there is absolutely no chance we're going to develop our own. Even now we're as close to possible to full employment (and yes I know a lot of those gig economy jobs are fucking vile)
Ending freedom of movement is not the same as ending immigration.
We could even decide to have freedom of movement from certain countries or all of them for a period of time should we wish. The point is that it will be a decision made by the British government based upon what it is mandated to do and what is in the overall interests of the country, not imposed on us by a treaty.
I remember it being headline news in the 1970s that unemployment was so high.
Yet now it's defined as full employment as they are more vacancies than there are unemployed. But those vacancies aren't all the areas where the un- or under-employed live or in the sectors where they have skills.
Problem is freedom of movement is a key part of EU membership but that is politically poison to many in the UK, even Jezza.
All we need in a deal that gives us all the access we want but without the bits of the EU we don't like (freedom of movement and the ECJ) and where we don't pay anything and can make deals with whoever we like and we can just ignore the Irish border.
But those nasty Europeans told us we couldn't have that. They told us Cameron that when he tried to get a better deal before the referendum, they told us after the referendum and they are still telling us it now. But we won't listen and blame them for sticking to what they said despite us "holding all the cards" and "they need us more than them". They are bullies and punishing us for not doing exactly what we want.
the British government could have put restrictions on FOM, it's in the EU law. May as home sec decided not to place any restrictions on Free movement, in Belgium and Austria you have to register, and then after 3 months you are made to leave if you are a 'burden'
Directive 2004/38/EC introduces EU citizenship as the basic status for nationals of the Member States when they exercise their right to move and reside freely in EU territory. For the first three months, every EU citizen has the right to reside in the territory of another EU country with no conditions or formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport. For longer periods, the host Member State may require a citizen to register his or her presence within a reasonable and non-discriminatory period of time.
Migrant workers’ right to reside for more than three months remains subject to certain conditions, which vary depending on the citizen’s status: for EU citizens who are not workers or self-employed, the right of residence depends on their having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system, and having sickness insurance. EU citizens acquire the right of permanent residence in the host Member State after a period of five years of uninterrupted legal residence.,i>
Ending Freedom of Movement is bad for this country, it's bad for the British people, and there is absolutely no chance we're going to develop our own. Even now we're as close to possible to full employment (and yes I know a lot of those gig economy jobs are fucking vile)
Ending freedom of movement is not the same as ending immigration.
We could even decide to have freedom of movement from certain countries or all of them for a period of time should we wish. The point is that it will be a decision made by the British government based upon what it is mandated to do and what is in the overall interests of the country, not imposed on us by a treaty.
So that’s your version of the Brexit you voted for. I doubt you share that view with the majority that hold that immigration is bad.
"If this story ends in a tragedy which blights the lives of our children, as seems not unlikely, the career nostalgics of the Tory right will bear much of the responsibility. A plausible consequence of their 40-year Eurobsession, at the expense of all the issues which should really matter to 21st-century Britain, is a Corbyn government. This would be elected by a nation rebounding from revelations of Brexit’s stupendous deceits, costs and irrelevance, of which the Conservative Party has insisted upon acquiring sole ownership."
I was hoping to learn more about your personal political outlook from that article, but I am none the wiser.
As for the article itself, several people have made pertinent points, to which i would add that many EU countries are ahead of the UK in the productivity stakes, and some of them have even lower unemployment levels than the UK, such as the country I am sitting in right now. Furthermore, in the Czech Republic there are less fake contracts, Amazon is paying above the odds rather than below, and Uber are being brought to heel. For all these reasons I don't buy the proposition that the UK needs to leave the EU in order to improve productivity.
It's a similar argument to that which justified Thatcher's shock and awe approach to union reform and privatisation. The Germans and Scandis took a completely different (more moderate and inclusive) approach, and lets look at the results, 30 years on. Were you a "Thatcherite", @Southbank?
Meanwhile, the execrable Rebecca Long-Bailey, the Shadow "Busines"s Minister was on the Today programme this morning. I can't link you to any clip. This tweet well explains why no such clip exists
I was quite happy to hear her though. It took me back to my Polytechnic days. Classic SWP student empty rhetoric and double-speak. "Kick art this Torree guvnment" etc, albeit in a Northern accent. Sorry @Cordoban Addick but this Labour front bench is utterly second-rate.
Meanwhile, the execrable Rebecca Long-Bailey, the Shadow "Busines"s Minister was on the Today programme this morning. I can't link you to any clip. This tweet well explains why no such clip exists
I was quite happy to hear her though. It took me back to my Polytechnic days. Classic SWP student empty rhetoric and double-speak. "Kick art this Torree guvnment" etc, albeit in a Northern accent. Sorry @Cordoban Addick but this Labour front bench is utterly second-rate.
Ending Freedom of Movement is bad for this country, it's bad for the British people, and there is absolutely no chance we're going to develop our own. Even now we're as close to possible to full employment (and yes I know a lot of those gig economy jobs are fucking vile)
Ending freedom of movement is not the same as ending immigration.
We could even decide to have freedom of movement from certain countries or all of them for a period of time should we wish. The point is that it will be a decision made by the British government based upon what it is mandated to do and what is in the overall interests of the country, not imposed on us by a treaty.
So that’s your version of the Brexit you voted for. I doubt you share that view with the majority that hold that immigration is bad.
Meanwhile, the execrable Rebecca Long-Bailey, the Shadow "Busines"s Minister was on the Today programme this morning. I can't link you to any clip. This tweet well explains why no such clip exists
I was quite happy to hear her though. It took me back to my Polytechnic days. Classic SWP student empty rhetoric and double-speak. "Kick art this Torree guvnment" etc, albeit in a Northern accent. Sorry @Cordoban Addick but this Labour front bench is utterly second-rate.
I was hoping to learn more about your personal political outlook from that article, but I am none the wiser.
As for the article itself, several people have made pertinent points, to which i would add that many EU countries are ahead of the UK in the productivity stakes, and some of them have even lower unemployment levels than the UK, such as the country I am sitting in right now. Furthermore, in the Czech Republic there are less fake contracts, Amazon is paying above the odds rather than below, and Uber are being brought to heel. For all these reasons I don't buy the proposition that the UK needs to leave the EU in order to improve productivity.
It's a similar argument to that which justified Thatcher's shock and awe approach to union reform and privatisation. The Germans and Scandis took a completely different (more moderate and inclusive) approach, and lets look at the results, 30 years on. Were you a "Thatcherite", @Southbank?
I never said the UK needs to leave the EU to improve productivity. But leaving the EU might act as a catalyst for change in the absence of change from elsewhere, which is Aldrick's argument. I was not a Thatcherite nor am I a Tory. Like many people today I have no political home. I do believe in the need for economic growth, as without it society as a whole stagnates. As I have said before here, increasing productivity is the main problem we face. If Brexit were to help that problem we would benefit in the medium to long term
On a political note, one of the newspaper editorials this weekend made the point that May's comparison of herself to Boycott is depressing, and it would be better if it were Botham or Stokes. We are lacking inspirational leadership and condemned apparently to defensive managerialism. I would like to see that changed.
I was hoping to learn more about your personal political outlook from that article, but I am none the wiser.
As for the article itself, several people have made pertinent points, to which i would add that many EU countries are ahead of the UK in the productivity stakes, and some of them have even lower unemployment levels than the UK, such as the country I am sitting in right now. Furthermore, in the Czech Republic there are less fake contracts, Amazon is paying above the odds rather than below, and Uber are being brought to heel. For all these reasons I don't buy the proposition that the UK needs to leave the EU in order to improve productivity.
It's a similar argument to that which justified Thatcher's shock and awe approach to union reform and privatisation. The Germans and Scandis took a completely different (more moderate and inclusive) approach, and lets look at the results, 30 years on. Were you a "Thatcherite", @Southbank?
I never said the UK needs to leave the EU to improve productivity. But leaving the EU might act as a catalyst for change in the absence of change from elsewhere, which is Aldrick's argument. I was not a Thatcherite nor am I a Tory. Like many people today I have no political home. I do believe in the need for economic growth, as without it society as a whole stagnates. As I have said before here, increasing productivity is the main problem we face. If Brexit were to help that problem we would benefit in the medium to long term
On a political note, one of the newspaper editorials this weekend made the point that May's comparison of herself to Boycott is depressing, and it would be better if it were Botham or Stokes. We are lacking inspirational leadership and condemned apparently to defensive managerialism. I would like to see that changed.
"If"...and then it would still need to compensate for the material damage to the economy that Brexit will clearly bring. Since you confirm that you are in favour of economic growth, for the same reasons as I am, you must be concerned at how the UK has already sunk to the bottom of the EU28 league table of GDP growth.
Latest from BBC is that it could be there are only 25 letters sent to the 1922 Cttee. A failure to reach the 48 would be a massive blow to ERG and its supporters.
Latest from BBC is that it could be there are only 25 letters sent to the 1922 Cttee. A failure to reach the 48 would be a massive blow to ERG and its supporters.
Comments
Well, its as good a theory as any other.
If the May plan gets to the House any vote will in my opinion be a lot closer than people are thinking.
She knows this is a vote winner with many members of the public who voted remain and it is something that it is easy to understand and take a stance on.
The legalese of the withdraw agreement is complicated and not exactly clear although very necessary.
So she is "dumbing down" or "get back to basics" depending on your view and pushing the part she knows will appeal to the tory grass roots as well as many traditional labour voters by talking about immigration.
It is nonsense as qualified nurses didn't meet the pay threasehold of the last plan her government suggested and someone has to pick the fruit and do the dirty jobs that most brits don't want to do. The long term solution is to train British people and pay them more so jobs in nursing, care, hospitality, etc are more attractive careers but short termism both in education and from employers blocks that.
We could even decide to have freedom of movement from certain countries or all of them for a period of time should we wish. The point is that it will be a decision made by the British government based upon what it is mandated to do and what is in the overall interests of the country, not imposed on us by a treaty.
I remember it being headline news in the 1970s that unemployment was so high.
Yet now it's defined as full employment as they are more vacancies than there are unemployed. But those vacancies aren't all the areas where the un- or under-employed live or in the sectors where they have skills.
Problem is freedom of movement is a key part of EU membership but that is politically poison to many in the UK, even Jezza.
All we need in a deal that gives us all the access we want but without the bits of the EU we don't like (freedom of movement and the ECJ) and where we don't pay anything and can make deals with whoever we like and we can just ignore the Irish border.
But those nasty Europeans told us we couldn't have that. They told us Cameron that when he tried to get a better deal before the referendum, they told us after the referendum and they are still telling us it now. But we won't listen and blame them for sticking to what they said despite us "holding all the cards" and "they need us more than them". They are bullies and punishing us for not doing exactly what we want.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-ll-all-pay-for-the-eu-obsession-of-the-right-v3b3ttqtl?shareToken=d7d6a7330cbbb19b774224f6928076c0
Directive 2004/38/EC introduces EU citizenship as the basic status for nationals of the Member States when they exercise their right to move and reside freely in EU territory. For the first three months, every EU citizen has the right to reside in the territory of another EU country with no conditions or formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport. For longer periods, the host Member State may require a citizen to register his or her presence within a reasonable and non-discriminatory period of time.
Migrant workers’ right to reside for more than three months remains subject to certain conditions, which vary depending on the citizen’s status: for EU citizens who are not workers or self-employed, the right of residence depends on their having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system, and having sickness insurance. EU citizens acquire the right of permanent residence in the host Member State after a period of five years of uninterrupted legal residence.,i>
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/19/boris-johnson-unused-water-cannon-sold-for-scrap-at-300000-loss
I was hoping to learn more about your personal political outlook from that article, but I am none the wiser.
As for the article itself, several people have made pertinent points, to which i would add that many EU countries are ahead of the UK in the productivity stakes, and some of them have even lower unemployment levels than the UK, such as the country I am sitting in right now. Furthermore, in the Czech Republic there are less fake contracts, Amazon is paying above the odds rather than below, and Uber are being brought to heel. For all these reasons I don't buy the proposition that the UK needs to leave the EU in order to improve productivity.
It's a similar argument to that which justified Thatcher's shock and awe approach to union reform and privatisation. The Germans and Scandis took a completely different (more moderate and inclusive) approach, and lets look at the results, 30 years on. Were you a "Thatcherite", @Southbank?
I was quite happy to hear her though. It took me back to my Polytechnic days. Classic SWP student empty rhetoric and double-speak. "Kick art this Torree guvnment" etc, albeit in a Northern accent. Sorry @Cordoban Addick but this Labour front bench is utterly second-rate.
I was not a Thatcherite nor am I a Tory. Like many people today I have no political home. I do believe in the need for economic growth, as without it society as a whole stagnates. As I have said before here, increasing productivity is the main problem we face. If Brexit were to help that problem we would benefit in the medium to long term
On a political note, one of the newspaper editorials this weekend made the point that May's comparison of herself to Boycott is depressing, and it would be better if it were Botham or Stokes. We are lacking inspirational leadership and condemned apparently to defensive managerialism. I would like to see that changed.
https://news.sky.com/story/danny-dyer-defends-theresa-may-with-furious-attack-on-boris-johnson-and-nigel-farage-11557431
Pwopper Naughty
Just waiting for Shay Given to pop up and then Ill make my mind up.