advertisement


Oh Britain, what have you done (part ∞+13)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The bit in bold misses the fact that each country in the EU has its own civil service, look at France and Germany - both in the millions!
So the EU civil servants, 50,000, serve the mutliple layers of bureaucracy within the EU.
The EU civil servants don't cover the same areas as local civil servants (subsdiarity principle), so comparisons are meaningless. The real question is can the UK cover those areas currently covered by the EU, such as trade negotiations, medicines, chemicals etc. more efficiently than the EU? My guess is that it can't, because there are fixed costs in working on those issues. For instance on the subject of approving new medicines, doing so for 500 million consumers is not 10 times more expensive than doing so for 50 million. The UK will have to duplicate all those EU agencies Brexiters love to complain about today, or become a rule taker.
 
My guess is that it can't, because there are fixed costs in working on those issues.
Actually it raises costs as the costs to the companies as they have to submit for approval to both the EU and the UK. What this means is that some prices will go up and other products won't be marketed in the UK at all.
 
If nothing else he could have stuck with his initial promise to be a democratic party leader acting on the wishes of the party membership. The stats quoted from the recent Guardian poll indicate just how hopelessly out of step he is with an overwhelming majority of Labour members supporting remain and a second referendum (as did the party conference previously). His blind intransigence and duplicitous arrogance in this, the key issue of the day, renders him no more credible than Boris Johnson or Michael Gove IMHO. Yet another slimy untrustworthy career politician. Just like Blair but without the talent!
Adapting policy to suit (agenda-driven) opinion polls isn’t how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work. The Labour Party has an unusually dense decision-making structure, to which conference is key (the other parties’ conferences are basically rallies). The current policy was concocted at conference in September. Yes, it was a fudge, but it was also a genuine compromise: the leadership would have preferred maximum room for manoeuvre, but were obliged to recognise members’ desire for a second referendum; members would have preferred the demand for a second referendum not to be contingent on events, but recognised that the leadership needed room for manoeuvre. They showed discipline and restraint because they trust the leadership and because their priority is a Labour government.

This is why the poll splashed on the front page of The Guardian is not news, certainly not to members, and not to anyone who was paying attention in September. Its purpose is not to inform, or even to persuade: most members and committed supporters resent this kind of misrepresentation of their position, and the more that PV campaigners attack Corbyn the less inclined members are going to be to support them. The purpose is to undermine the legitimacy of the Labour leadership by providing anti-Corbyn campaigners with a set of cues: You see, Labour aren’t democratic at all! This one’s for you, in other words.
 
Spot on Sean. The irony is that the internal debate within the Labour Party is (mostly) conducted in a far more civilised fashion than the debate on this forum. Most people in the party know the score, and don't need Guardian polls to enlighten" them.
 
Generally speaking, Brexit Britain will have to perform on its own the full range of (mostly mundane) functions currently performed by the EU for 28 member states. We'll see if this ends up costing more than what the UK used to pay in, nett, to the EU, and what the "outcomes" will be like.
More likely it will act like most developing countries do:
Rubber stamp foreign products which have appropriate CE approval and insist on full local testing for domestic companies. This puts a nice barrier in favour of imports.
"Taking back control"
 
The irony is that the internal debate within the Labour Party is (mostly) conducted in a far more civilised fashion than the debate on this forum.

Or at least that is how it is presented to those outside the Party not privy to what may actually go on. ;)
 
Aparantly, Grayling is just offering opportunities to start ups.

Great.

Give an important contract during what may be one of the most disruptive times in recent history to a startup.

Can we use the word ‘stupid’ in this context?

Stephen
 
This is why the poll splashed on the front page of The Guardian is not news, certainly not to members, and not to anyone who was paying attention in September. Its purpose is not to inform, or even to persuade: most members and committed supporters resent this kind of misrepresentation of their position, and the more that PV campaigners attack Corbyn the less inclined members are going to be to support them. The purpose is to undermine the legitimacy of the Labour leadership by providing anti-Corbyn campaigners with a set of cues: You see, Labour aren’t democratic at all! This one’s for you, in other words.
Most people in the party know the score, and don't need Guardian polls to enlighten" them.
All is well, then: the strategy is sound and working as we speak; the inner circle and LP members are all united behind Corbyn; and the Guardian can make a living by informing us plebs about what is old news to you.

Rock on.
 
All is well, then: the strategy is sound and working as we speak; the inner circle and LP members are all united behind Corbyn; and the Guardian can make a living by informing us plebs about what is old news to you.

Rock on.
56829757.jpg
 
This one had escaped my notice: The Fantastic Dr Fox said a few days ago that the chances of Brexit are 50:50 if Tezdeal 1.0 is rejected...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46713498

And without a hint of irony continued -

"And, for me, that would induce a sense that we had betrayed the people that had voted in the referendum."

It seems to me that if you take the country as one lumpenmass then a 50:50 chance of Brexit is almost precisely what was voted for.
Not 50/50...
brexit-chart.jpg
 
No he didn't, you can defend his actions as you please, will not change the fact this guy single handedly destroyed people's lives on a daily basis, now May continues the trend, expect the unexpected come another ref if this government is still in place, a simple warning to all who think this is a done deal.
I'll tell you how to vote, don't stress it. Least I can do.
 
The current policy was concocted at conference in September. Yes, it was a fudge, but it was also a genuine compromise: the leadership would have preferred maximum room for manoeuvre, but were obliged to recognise members’ desire for a second referendum; members would have preferred the demand for a second referendum not to be contingent on events, but recognised that the leadership needed room for manoeuvre. They showed discipline and restraint because they trust the leadership and because their priority is a Labour government.

This is why the poll splashed on the front page of The Guardian is not news, certainly not to members, and not to anyone who was paying attention in September.
Problem is, a lot of potential floating voters aren't privy to this sort of knowledge and understanding either. You'd have had to be paying pretty close attention in September to be aware of it, if not a party member. And these are the people you need to reach.
 
Problem is, a lot of potential floating voters aren't privy to this sort of knowledge and understanding either. You'd have had to be paying pretty close attention in September to be aware of it, if not a party member. And these are the people you need to reach.

Yes, it's a shame. It's almost as if the media have no interest in reporting events in a nuanced, informative manner, and would rather whip up one "controversy" after another in order generate clicks and views (c.f. the "stupid woman" incident).
 
All is well, then: the strategy is sound and working as we speak; the inner circle and LP members are all united behind Corbyn; and the Guardian can make a living by informing us plebs about what is old news to you.

Rock on.


The YouGov poll found 29 per cent of members opposed the stance the party has taken on Brexit and 56 per cent of those told researchers it has caused them (88,000) to consider quitting. Must be fake news for the plebs.
 
All is well, then: the strategy is sound and working as we speak; the inner circle and LP members are all united behind Corbyn; and the Guardian can make a living by informing us plebs about what is old news to you.

Rock on.
No need for sarcasm. TonyL's point was mainly about how Corbyn is (allegedly) betraying internal party democracy with his (alleged) scepticism about the EU. Sean and I merely pointed out that the internal mood of the party is much more relaxed than the "99% of members want to stay in the EU" headlines might suggest. It's possible to be fulsomely pro-EU and still be pro-Corbyn; indeed, that's where the majority of the party is, in my estimation.
 
The fact that as many as 13 million registered voters did not bother to vote indicates to me that it was less of a protest vote than some people imagine. Maybe just an unholy alliance then.
 
The YouGov poll found 29 per cent of members opposed the stance the party has taken on Brexit and 56 per cent of those told researchers it has caused them (88,000) to consider quitting. Must be fake news for the plebs.
Presumably no figures on how many have actually quit. I keep asking the Dear Leaders faithful on here for the numbers, but they ain't forthcoming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top