Main Edition
US
FR
"Who will stand for this new nation?" (Carl Court/Getty Images)
When even Nigel Farage concedes that Brexit has been a failure, surely the most staunch of Brexiteers can forgive the many Remainers and Rejoiners who now feel vindicated. Not only do the polls show an influx of younger voters entering the electorate who are adamantly hostile to Brexit, but “Bregret” is apparently even seeping through the electorate old enough to have voted in 2016, including in the once-proud Eurosceptic constituencies of the Midlands and Northern England.
One does not need to be a psephologist to understand the shift in the public mood. Evidence of Britain’s malaise is all around us, from pot-holed roads to a crumbling public health service, all overseen by an exhausted government desperate to be put out of its misery, as a slew of Tory parliamentarians confirm they will not stand at the next general election.
To blame this all on Brexit, however, would be to adopt the same imperialistic and conceited attitude of many Remainers, convinced that Britain is still the centre of the world. We need only look across the Channel to see that similar problems plague our EU neighbours, too: inflationary energy dependence, deindustrialisation, interest rate rises, house price inflation, regional disparities bound up with peripheral separatist movements. All of this is compounded by deep political uncertainty across the continent. In many ways, despite having formally withdrawn from the EU, Britain still resembles a member-state.
To imagine that rejoining the EU would solve our problems is Eutopian fantasy. None of these polls, nor the media hubbub around “Bregret”, should be taken at face value — no more than we should still be quailing over the absurd predictions of Britain being wiped out by asteroids for the temerity of having voted for Brexit. Indeed, the very fact that the Red Wall is edging back to Labour and away from the Tories indicates at least one absolute gain from Brexit — a growing sense of political independence among the lower-middle and working classes. The fact that traditional working-class constituencies previously under the thumb of Labour are now swing seats, able to decide the outcomes of elections by switching their support from one party to another, is a salutary reminder to Britain’s political elites of the dangers of democratic complacency.
Moreover, one suspects the polls would quickly change if the prospect of rejoining the EU was once again put to the voters. Majorities that appear overwhelming and solid would quickly melt away when people were confronted not with abstract questions, but rather with the prospect of a meaningful political choice over rejoining the Single Market, rejoining the EU without the rebate, or even having to sign up to Tony Blair’s old dream of joining the Eurozone, a commitment required of all new member-states.
Instead of holding another referendum, then, it seems more likely that the pattern of Brexit policies established under prime ministers Johnson and Sunak will continue under future governments — that is, growing rapprochement and strategic realignment with Brussels, as indicated in Britain’s participation at the second summit of the European Political Community last week. Whether this long-term trend is justified by the need to prop up seedy sectarian power-sharing arrangements in Stormont, or by the need to manage the risks created by Nato expansion, the creep back towards Brussels will be soft and gradual, with governments avoiding giving voters anything so stark as a clear choice.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeShame about the clickbait headline. The whole point of Brexit is to achieve greater democracy – allowing the population to regain some control over the current set of “elites” – however long it takes.
Yes indeed, and however painful the process.
What “process” are you talking about? Details please.
UK elections
UK elections
What “process” are you talking about? Details please.
Yes, that is why Blackpool voted Leave.
In 2005 the British people had the chance to throw out the 2 political parties that institutionally supported the Iraq War and reward the party that institutionally opposed it. Remind me how did the British people vote?!
There is nothing more absurd that the people need to regain control…they have control that is why so many fools are elected…. BY THE PEOPLE!
You clearly haven’t the first clue why democracy remains a better system than all the alternatives so far devised.
And yes, the alternatives so far devised do include the EU, basket case that it is.
You seem to want to convince yourself that the EU is a basket case but it is Britain that’s in more serious trouble these days. Not that either is great.
The evidence is against you. The EU is disfunctional and now it’s economic engine, Germany, is in recession it is floundering even more. Political divisions are rife and talk of breaking their own rules to cope with what they don’t like – think Hungary, Poland.
In a way, your reply perfectly illustrates the chasm of understanding between the two sides here. You carelessly conflate a nation-state with a functioning democratic system on one hand, and a badly designed federation on the other. They are not at all comparable: the EU has issues that the UK hasn’t had in 300 years: it doesn’t have a fiscal union, has no single demos that supports fiscal transfers, has no strategic autonomy in matters of defence, it is fatally dependent upon hostile external relationships to prop up what little stability it has, etc.
The UK is in a mess principally because it handled the pandemic very badly indeed, but it retains all the levers of power required to remedy those mistakes. The EU does not, and the way things are going, will not have them without existential risk.
The evidence is against you. The EU is disfunctional and now it’s economic engine, Germany, is in recession it is floundering even more. Political divisions are rife and talk of breaking their own rules to cope with what they don’t like – think Hungary, Poland.
In a way, your reply perfectly illustrates the chasm of understanding between the two sides here. You carelessly conflate a nation-state with a functioning democratic system on one hand, and a badly designed federation on the other. They are not at all comparable: the EU has issues that the UK hasn’t had in 300 years: it doesn’t have a fiscal union, has no single demos that supports fiscal transfers, has no strategic autonomy in matters of defence, it is fatally dependent upon hostile external relationships to prop up what little stability it has, etc.
The UK is in a mess principally because it handled the pandemic very badly indeed, but it retains all the levers of power required to remedy those mistakes. The EU does not, and the way things are going, will not have them without existential risk.
You seem to want to convince yourself that the EU is a basket case but it is Britain that’s in more serious trouble these days. Not that either is great.
You clearly haven’t the first clue why democracy remains a better system than all the alternatives so far devised.
And yes, the alternatives so far devised do include the EU, basket case that it is.
How? Proposals please
Reduce the welfare state, reduce immigration, create more vocational and technical universities, abolish useless social justice degrees, introduce more computer and technical classes in schools, audit government spending and funding, elevate motherhood, higher salaries for straight married men with children, invest in military technology, form economic alliances with other like-minded nations, invest in high-tech infrastructure and transportation, reform the NHS, encourage national and familial pride, I can go on forever like this.
And who is going to persuade companies to give pay rises to all the ‘straight married men’ on their payrolls?
I predict a sudden spike in the hiring of unmarried men and women as soon as the government starts meddling in pay in this way.
And who is going to persuade companies to give pay rises to all the ‘straight married men’ on their payrolls?
I predict a sudden spike in the hiring of unmarried men and women as soon as the government starts meddling in pay in this way.
Yes and how have these (presumably ‘liberal’) elites been oppressing ordinary people through the EU? Is it through all that development money they offered to poor cities in the north (something our own government can’t be bothered to do)? Or maybe it’s their obsession with trans rights which is destroying young minds in schools despite taking up no more than an hour a year of PSHE lessons?
U.K. elites have been blaming EU elites for failures of their own making. Increasing local lawmaking virtually removes this excuse.
That advantage I’ll give you, though it seems they’ve adeptly passed the blame on to refugees and before Brexit was on the table it was benefits scroungers. They always find someone.
That advantage I’ll give you, though it seems they’ve adeptly passed the blame on to refugees and before Brexit was on the table it was benefits scroungers. They always find someone.
U.K. elites have been blaming EU elites for failures of their own making. Increasing local lawmaking virtually removes this excuse.
U.K. elections
Reduce the welfare state, reduce immigration, create more vocational and technical universities, abolish useless social justice degrees, introduce more computer and technical classes in schools, audit government spending and funding, elevate motherhood, higher salaries for straight married men with children, invest in military technology, form economic alliances with other like-minded nations, invest in high-tech infrastructure and transportation, reform the NHS, encourage national and familial pride, I can go on forever like this.
Yes and how have these (presumably ‘liberal’) elites been oppressing ordinary people through the EU? Is it through all that development money they offered to poor cities in the north (something our own government can’t be bothered to do)? Or maybe it’s their obsession with trans rights which is destroying young minds in schools despite taking up no more than an hour a year of PSHE lessons?
U.K. elections
I continue to be staggered at the ability of all Remainers not to know, or alternatively to ignore, the provisions of the EU Constitution (embodied in the Treaty of Lisbon).
The electoral system it enforces makes the sacking of the whole Council of Ministers at the very top of the EU utterly impractical and impossible.
The most that any member country can do is to change its national government and therewith replace the one minister sent by their country to the Council; but the other 26 ministers are not fired and so the direction of travel never changes, can never change.
(It is as if we could get rid of one Minister in our own country’s Cabinet, say the Minister of Housing, but no other member of the Cabinet – which would permanently remain in government.)
It is the Council of Ministers that sets the broad outlines of policy in the EU, and hands these down for the Commission to interpret as laws and directives; which in turn are then rubber-stamped by a Parliament which has few real debates and anyway cannot veto legislation.
Either Remaianers are wonderfully ignorant boneheads or they are corrupt – do not want democratic accountability.
Most remainers I have argued with have no idea what the democratic deficit in question actually is. They of course deny that it exists at all, but the point is that when asked “what do Brexit supporters claim that the democratic deficit actually is”, usually they just don’t have any idea.
Most remainers I have argued with have no idea what the democratic deficit in question actually is. They of course deny that it exists at all, but the point is that when asked “what do Brexit supporters claim that the democratic deficit actually is”, usually they just don’t have any idea.
What so they could increase immigration? Damn EU elites stopping us from bringing in millions of Africans and Asians.
I agree with you that that is the point, but it was always a project that was going to be democratically tested early on. Unfortunately the Establishment that hated the 2016 result has mostly succeeded in ensuring that there is precious little to show for it so far. Is it a disgrace that said Establishment can simply get its own way against democracy by simply sabotaging every step of the process and then blaming the process? Indeed it is. But that’s what has happened, and on current trajectory the scumbags responsible are going to get away with it.
We have replaced the “elites” with a group of British politicians who’s only interest is their political and business ambitions. All this comes before the interests of the UK and its people.
So you’d wish to return us to our former status in the EU? If not, what is your point?
At least now, we have the option of voting out of government those whose “only interest is their political and business ambitions” if we could find a bunch of political aspirants to whom that didn’t apply.
I suppose the point is a despairing but maybe realistic one (with regard at least to the short to medium term) that our own elite is more hostile to the interests of the UK than the elites in Brussels, more concerned as the eurocrats seem to be with workers’ rights, the upholding of the separation of powers (going by their opposition to the illiberalism in Poland and Hungary) and also generous (judging by the funding they gave to the north of England, which our government prefers to ignore). That said I think the Brexit lot win on principle, it’s just how likely do you think (with our current duopoly of corporate parties in thrall to the Murdoch empire as well as their donors) we will have reason to celebrate the benefits of Brexit any time soon, if even ever?
I suppose the point is a despairing but maybe realistic one (with regard at least to the short to medium term) that our own elite is more hostile to the interests of the UK than the elites in Brussels, more concerned as the eurocrats seem to be with workers’ rights, the upholding of the separation of powers (going by their opposition to the illiberalism in Poland and Hungary) and also generous (judging by the funding they gave to the north of England, which our government prefers to ignore). That said I think the Brexit lot win on principle, it’s just how likely do you think (with our current duopoly of corporate parties in thrall to the Murdoch empire as well as their donors) we will have reason to celebrate the benefits of Brexit any time soon, if even ever?
So you’d wish to return us to our former status in the EU? If not, what is your point?
At least now, we have the option of voting out of government those whose “only interest is their political and business ambitions” if we could find a bunch of political aspirants to whom that didn’t apply.
Greater democracy you speak of will lead to vassalisation of Britain to US. I suspect many are happy with that, but then let’s call a spade a spade.
Yes indeed, and however painful the process.
Yes, that is why Blackpool voted Leave.
In 2005 the British people had the chance to throw out the 2 political parties that institutionally supported the Iraq War and reward the party that institutionally opposed it. Remind me how did the British people vote?!
There is nothing more absurd that the people need to regain control…they have control that is why so many fools are elected…. BY THE PEOPLE!
How? Proposals please
I continue to be staggered at the ability of all Remainers not to know, or alternatively to ignore, the provisions of the EU Constitution (embodied in the Treaty of Lisbon).
The electoral system it enforces makes the sacking of the whole Council of Ministers at the very top of the EU utterly impractical and impossible.
The most that any member country can do is to change its national government and therewith replace the one minister sent by their country to the Council; but the other 26 ministers are not fired and so the direction of travel never changes, can never change.
(It is as if we could get rid of one Minister in our own country’s Cabinet, say the Minister of Housing, but no other member of the Cabinet – which would permanently remain in government.)
It is the Council of Ministers that sets the broad outlines of policy in the EU, and hands these down for the Commission to interpret as laws and directives; which in turn are then rubber-stamped by a Parliament which has few real debates and anyway cannot veto legislation.
Either Remaianers are wonderfully ignorant boneheads or they are corrupt – do not want democratic accountability.
What so they could increase immigration? Damn EU elites stopping us from bringing in millions of Africans and Asians.
I agree with you that that is the point, but it was always a project that was going to be democratically tested early on. Unfortunately the Establishment that hated the 2016 result has mostly succeeded in ensuring that there is precious little to show for it so far. Is it a disgrace that said Establishment can simply get its own way against democracy by simply sabotaging every step of the process and then blaming the process? Indeed it is. But that’s what has happened, and on current trajectory the scumbags responsible are going to get away with it.
We have replaced the “elites” with a group of British politicians who’s only interest is their political and business ambitions. All this comes before the interests of the UK and its people.
Greater democracy you speak of will lead to vassalisation of Britain to US. I suspect many are happy with that, but then let’s call a spade a spade.
Shame about the clickbait headline. The whole point of Brexit is to achieve greater democracy – allowing the population to regain some control over the current set of “elites” – however long it takes.
“With 60% of British voters no longer feeling represented by existing parties,”
I have felt that way for a very long time. I haven’t voted in a national election since 1997 for that reason. (I still have nightmare memories of having voted for that grinning charlatan, Blair). I turn up at the voting booth, look at the list of candidates, and think Orwell:
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
The referendum wasn’t offered as a genuine choice. It was simply Cameron’s attempt to outflank his opponents within his party. In the US such enemies are, I gather, called Deplorables. Cameron called them The Turnip Taliban.
In a parliamentry system Brixit cannot happen without the genuine support of a majority of MPs, and that suppoort was not forthcoming. I watched the expressions of grief on the faces of the losing side the day after the count with amusement. Those faces were not saying “What will happen to my constituents?” They were saying “What about my Villa in Tuscany?” I refer to it, still, as The Polly Toynbee Gurn.
So what would you have actually done with Brexit PR? Don’t give us slogans, but rather outline of policies that you feel Country would have accepted as in line with what they voted for?
The issue the vacuous article highlights is far too many Brexiteers thought that was it and after we left some miracle would occur and many of our problems resolve. Demonstrative of totally inadequate thinking and prep. Nonetheless a chance for you to outline what should then have happened.
.. and a significant chunk of Remainers were in complete ignorance/denial of the ongoing direction of travel of the EU project.
Feel free to outline the good reasons for staying in a non-democratic organisation that is gradually reducing your ability to influence the laws that govern your life.
Which laws particularly annoyed you? The workers and human rights protections perhaps? Or maybe the EU’s tyrannical treatment of Poland and Hungary for cracking down on freedom of the press and eroding the separation of powers?
I didn’t express annoyance in my comment above, but happy to suggest Maastricht as something that I find deeply unacceptable.
.
BTW – feel free to answer the question I raised.
Actually your question is utter BS!
In my lifetime every major catastrophic decision (Iraq/Libya, light touch regulation of the City, housing, education, job training, CAPEX, R&D..opening the doors for Russian dirty money…need I go further?) were all British GOV responsibilities.
Seconded
All true but more a reason for spring cleaning our ministers rather than dancing to someone else’ tune.
My question remains perfectly valid. We need to be able to vote out anybody whose policies we don’t like. We have always had the ability to vote out the politicians who made the decisions you have referred to.
We need to make sure that we can vote out any and all others.
You had a reasonable point to make about poor decisions made by U.K. politicians – which did not require abusive expressions like “BS”.
I have responded to the rest of your comment above
Well done for not being provoked into an abusive response.
Well said.
Well done for not being provoked into an abusive response.
Well said.
Seconded
All true but more a reason for spring cleaning our ministers rather than dancing to someone else’ tune.
My question remains perfectly valid. We need to be able to vote out anybody whose policies we don’t like. We have always had the ability to vote out the politicians who made the decisions you have referred to.
We need to make sure that we can vote out any and all others.
You had a reasonable point to make about poor decisions made by U.K. politicians – which did not require abusive expressions like “BS”.
I have responded to the rest of your comment above
Actually your question is utter BS!
In my lifetime every major catastrophic decision (Iraq/Libya, light touch regulation of the City, housing, education, job training, CAPEX, R&D..opening the doors for Russian dirty money…need I go further?) were all British GOV responsibilities.
The EU supports the ‘separation of powers’? There are no ‘powers’ in the EU. All have been subsumed long ago into what’s inelegantly called ‘The Blob’.
I agree with your sentiment, but I suspect that the Eurogroup may beg to differ.
I agree with your sentiment, but I suspect that the Eurogroup may beg to differ.
You miss the point entirely (deliberately?).
Laws that govern British people should be made only by a British parliament elected by British people, and not by those who were not elected and cannot be unelected. It is called democracy – I appreciate that democracy is unpopular with so many supporters of the EU and with good reason, as membership of the EU allows an arrogant and self-serving elite to impose its will upon the majority without its consent.
The workers’ protections certainly annoy me, because they were unnecessary. The UK was perfectly capable of legislating for employment rights without needing an EU directive. Indeed, UK law gives better protection than is required by EU directives in many areas, statutory minimum holiday entitlement is one example.
But enmeshment by the EU has simply led to bad law in many areas, without any appreciable benefit to workers. See the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the ridiculously complicated calculations needed for holiday pay thanks to EU rules that we have not yet revoked or amended.
Human rights protections come from our membership of the ECHR of course not from the EU.
Exactly, We are – or certainly were – quite capable of deciding and legislating for appropriate worker protection for ourselves. Quite possible that we were the very first country to introduce factory acts.
I suppose I agree with everyone above who is challenging me that in principle it is better that we can legislate for ourselves, but it’s the cynic in me that thinks our duopoly of corporate parties in thrall to the Murdoch empire will erode our protections and liberties faster than the EU will (our anti trade union laws for instance are now the toughest in Europe, after Russia, while the attitude of this current government to protest seems questionable to say the least). Then again, I’m not a fan of the increasingly corporate nature of the EU either, I just think Brexit will force us to submit to powers (China, the US) whose interests are even more at odds with ours if we are to have a fighting chance of remaining relevant. The globalists having their way with Brexit are currently proving a greater evil than the EU, as I’d feared from the start.
And as to DU’s point about there being no link between Brexit and our membership of the ECHR – that’s no quite true. Our decision to repeal the Human Rights Act might make ECHR decisions less effective:
https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/resources/brexit-and-human-rights
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/how-might-brexit-affect-human-rights-in-the-uk/
I think that our politicians became lazy due to the EU control. We got the politicians we deserved not what we needed. Skill levels severely downgraded with the advent of the “professional” politicians (meaning those who have done nothing else and are good for nothing). We need giants of industry, professions, those of real experience and capability. But in the febrile circumstances now subsisting why would anyone of real talent want to ? And local government is even worse.
I think that our politicians became lazy due to the EU control. We got the politicians we deserved not what we needed. Skill levels severely downgraded with the advent of the “professional” politicians (meaning those who have done nothing else and are good for nothing). We need giants of industry, professions, those of real experience and capability. But in the febrile circumstances now subsisting why would anyone of real talent want to ? And local government is even worse.
I suppose I agree with everyone above who is challenging me that in principle it is better that we can legislate for ourselves, but it’s the cynic in me that thinks our duopoly of corporate parties in thrall to the Murdoch empire will erode our protections and liberties faster than the EU will (our anti trade union laws for instance are now the toughest in Europe, after Russia, while the attitude of this current government to protest seems questionable to say the least). Then again, I’m not a fan of the increasingly corporate nature of the EU either, I just think Brexit will force us to submit to powers (China, the US) whose interests are even more at odds with ours if we are to have a fighting chance of remaining relevant. The globalists having their way with Brexit are currently proving a greater evil than the EU, as I’d feared from the start.
And as to DU’s point about there being no link between Brexit and our membership of the ECHR – that’s no quite true. Our decision to repeal the Human Rights Act might make ECHR decisions less effective:
https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/resources/brexit-and-human-rights
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/how-might-brexit-affect-human-rights-in-the-uk/
Exactly, We are – or certainly were – quite capable of deciding and legislating for appropriate worker protection for ourselves. Quite possible that we were the very first country to introduce factory acts.
It isn’t the point if they annoy you or not. It’s about them being made and imposed by unelected ministers.
I didn’t express annoyance in my comment above, but happy to suggest Maastricht as something that I find deeply unacceptable.
.
BTW – feel free to answer the question I raised.
The EU supports the ‘separation of powers’? There are no ‘powers’ in the EU. All have been subsumed long ago into what’s inelegantly called ‘The Blob’.
You miss the point entirely (deliberately?).
Laws that govern British people should be made only by a British parliament elected by British people, and not by those who were not elected and cannot be unelected. It is called democracy – I appreciate that democracy is unpopular with so many supporters of the EU and with good reason, as membership of the EU allows an arrogant and self-serving elite to impose its will upon the majority without its consent.
The workers’ protections certainly annoy me, because they were unnecessary. The UK was perfectly capable of legislating for employment rights without needing an EU directive. Indeed, UK law gives better protection than is required by EU directives in many areas, statutory minimum holiday entitlement is one example.
But enmeshment by the EU has simply led to bad law in many areas, without any appreciable benefit to workers. See the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the ridiculously complicated calculations needed for holiday pay thanks to EU rules that we have not yet revoked or amended.
Human rights protections come from our membership of the ECHR of course not from the EU.
It isn’t the point if they annoy you or not. It’s about them being made and imposed by unelected ministers.
Too keep the Brexitards out of power. Do you really want Mark Francois in power?
More abusive language – I would recommend a lie down Jeremy.
Or reverting to Twitter, which seems to be his preferred style.
Or reverting to Twitter, which seems to be his preferred style.
More abusive language – I would recommend a lie down Jeremy.
Which laws particularly annoyed you? The workers and human rights protections perhaps? Or maybe the EU’s tyrannical treatment of Poland and Hungary for cracking down on freedom of the press and eroding the separation of powers?
Too keep the Brexitards out of power. Do you really want Mark Francois in power?
TBF I think both sides assumed that keeping or changing the structure would solve all our problems. If EU membership was so self-evidently brilliant we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Still listening to the voices?
Mr j Watson, what on earth did you find to talk about before Brexit
It is funny how your comment (asking for specifics – how dare you!) gets negative 22 votes.
I will vote you up!
No don’t you will dent JW’s pride – a high number of negative votes is what you want on here. -22 would be nearing a personal best for me.
I think the problems here are 1. it coming over as arrogant and superior and 2. not actually contributing personal debate. Firing shots from behind the parapet.
No don’t you will dent JW’s pride – a high number of negative votes is what you want on here. -22 would be nearing a personal best for me.
I think the problems here are 1. it coming over as arrogant and superior and 2. not actually contributing personal debate. Firing shots from behind the parapet.
You can’t ask a Brexiter for their “policies”. They haven’t got any, and they become very irate at being asked to produce one.
You misunderstand.
Brexiteers don’t need “policies”. They merely need to establish that “policies” are determined by a British parliament, elected by British electors.
You really don’t get it do you?
Sure, and that’s the moral argument for Brexit. But it is also important to know what those pushing for Brexit had planned for the UK, and I’d say that the Dubai on Thames wanted by so many Tories was a betrayal of the popular Brexit which was anti-globalist and tragically – with the overepresentation of the super rich in the media and politics – will never get a hearing. The point is – you might be right on the principle of leaving, but what exactly are we supposed to be looking forward to? You tell us – what are the exciting new opportunities of Brexit? Ones which don’t leave the worst off even worse, or our economy more vulnerable to the interests of states that care less about us than those of Europe? Myb one hope was that lower immigration might increase the bargaining power of labour, but there’s been no sign of that, even in sectors that have lost workers due to Brexit.
Your last point hits the nail on the head. We should now start to see local wages gradually rising – instead of the importing of cheap labour to exploit – while suppressing the wages (and access to services) of the existing UK population.
If the current government fails to enact this, subsequent U.K. elections can occur until one eventually does.
If it wasn’t for the EU insistence on “free movement”, I suspect that the U.K. electorate would have voted to remain in the EU.
With you on the centrality of freedom of movement in the Brexit vote. Much less sure that lowering immigration will automatically raise wages. As I’ve said, sectors which have lost workers due to Brexit, such as fruit picking, have not seen raises in wages. If you can think of an example (outside trucking) where the promises of ‘Lexit’ (i.e. the Left’s belief that lower immigration in some sectors will boost wages) have delivered I’d be very glad to know of them. Yet I never hear of them (probably because there aren’t any). As the supply of cheap labour runs dry, most employers, by my understanding, switch to other sectors where they can still keep wage costs down, or move to the parasitic housing market where again pressure from immigration is much discussed as a cause of the poverty that market inflicts and the effect of high demand from the super rich never. There are more houses than households in the UK. Tell me with a straight face that that’s a problem of immigration and not of the wealthy hoarding as many properties as they can.
The house price to wage ratio started to increase during Labour’s first term along with them increasing the immigration rate five fold (unnecessarily). Interest rates were low for all of the period. This benefitted the asset holding classes, even more so with the global financial crash.
Most of the jobs created were low wage, low skill part time service jobs. The house price to income ratio is now x8, with rising interest rates workers will find it even harder to pay their mortgage or buy a house while Ccmpanies will struggle to pay their workers more.
A disaster 25 years in the making, mass immigration and low interest rates.
I appreciate that you can’t see my face at this moment, but trust me when I say that both of the things you list are significant contributors to the housing problem.
There is strong evidence that the pub and restaurant trades are now having to significantly increase wages to attract staff.
This increases my leisure costs – but I’m very happy to pay more.
Neither of you are wrong. New Labour deepened the entrenched problems of the housing crisis started by Thatcher (although they put some plasters on the problem, like key start, helping key workers buy homes). Also agree that immigration must play some role in raising house prices – I just wish it wasn’t the only factor discussed by newspapers who never admit that it is as much the super-rich (i.e. the class who owns newspapers and most of our media) who are to blame.
And yes IB, looked into what you say about pubs and that is some good news at least re Brexit (although perhaps all that can be pointed to right now). Disappointed to find the Telegraph’s coverage of those pub wage increases more positive than that of the guardian, which bemoaned ‘wage wars’ starting between pubs in an effort to recruit workers, neglecting the fact that that’s exactly what a proper left-wing paper should be celebrating. Instead in its description of one pub it was nostalgic for it’s old team of Czech workers, ‘really hard grafters’ (read: easily exploitable). Love a Czech, but can someone moving from a country of low pay to one of high pay be counted on to try and bargain for higher wages?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/28/pubs-struggle-to-retain-staff-after-brexit-and-covid-double-whammy
Neither of you are wrong. New Labour deepened the entrenched problems of the housing crisis started by Thatcher (although they put some plasters on the problem, like key start, helping key workers buy homes). Also agree that immigration must play some role in raising house prices – I just wish it wasn’t the only factor discussed by newspapers who never admit that it is as much the super-rich (i.e. the class who owns newspapers and most of our media) who are to blame.
And yes IB, looked into what you say about pubs and that is some good news at least re Brexit (although perhaps all that can be pointed to right now). Disappointed to find the Telegraph’s coverage of those pub wage increases more positive than that of the guardian, which bemoaned ‘wage wars’ starting between pubs in an effort to recruit workers, neglecting the fact that that’s exactly what a proper left-wing paper should be celebrating. Instead in its description of one pub it was nostalgic for it’s old team of Czech workers, ‘really hard grafters’ (read: easily exploitable). Love a Czech, but can someone moving from a country of low pay to one of high pay be counted on to try and bargain for higher wages?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/28/pubs-struggle-to-retain-staff-after-brexit-and-covid-double-whammy
The house price to wage ratio started to increase during Labour’s first term along with them increasing the immigration rate five fold (unnecessarily). Interest rates were low for all of the period. This benefitted the asset holding classes, even more so with the global financial crash.
Most of the jobs created were low wage, low skill part time service jobs. The house price to income ratio is now x8, with rising interest rates workers will find it even harder to pay their mortgage or buy a house while Ccmpanies will struggle to pay their workers more.
A disaster 25 years in the making, mass immigration and low interest rates.
I appreciate that you can’t see my face at this moment, but trust me when I say that both of the things you list are significant contributors to the housing problem.
There is strong evidence that the pub and restaurant trades are now having to significantly increase wages to attract staff.
This increases my leisure costs – but I’m very happy to pay more.
With you on the centrality of freedom of movement in the Brexit vote. Much less sure that lowering immigration will automatically raise wages. As I’ve said, sectors which have lost workers due to Brexit, such as fruit picking, have not seen raises in wages. If you can think of an example (outside trucking) where the promises of ‘Lexit’ (i.e. the Left’s belief that lower immigration in some sectors will boost wages) have delivered I’d be very glad to know of them. Yet I never hear of them (probably because there aren’t any). As the supply of cheap labour runs dry, most employers, by my understanding, switch to other sectors where they can still keep wage costs down, or move to the parasitic housing market where again pressure from immigration is much discussed as a cause of the poverty that market inflicts and the effect of high demand from the super rich never. There are more houses than households in the UK. Tell me with a straight face that that’s a problem of immigration and not of the wealthy hoarding as many properties as they can.
Well as a person working in distribution and freight management I can tell you that the drivers of HGVs have had a significant bump in salary, around £3-5k in most instances as a direct result of less imported cheap labour. Plus around 6k extra drivers since the fuel crisis of 2021.
Yes and that’s great news (I was aware of wages in trucking going up but thought it was an exception). I hope you/they enjoy their long-deserved pay rise!
Yes and that’s great news (I was aware of wages in trucking going up but thought it was an exception). I hope you/they enjoy their long-deserved pay rise!
Your last point hits the nail on the head. We should now start to see local wages gradually rising – instead of the importing of cheap labour to exploit – while suppressing the wages (and access to services) of the existing UK population.
If the current government fails to enact this, subsequent U.K. elections can occur until one eventually does.
If it wasn’t for the EU insistence on “free movement”, I suspect that the U.K. electorate would have voted to remain in the EU.
Well as a person working in distribution and freight management I can tell you that the drivers of HGVs have had a significant bump in salary, around £3-5k in most instances as a direct result of less imported cheap labour. Plus around 6k extra drivers since the fuel crisis of 2021.
Sure, and that’s the moral argument for Brexit. But it is also important to know what those pushing for Brexit had planned for the UK, and I’d say that the Dubai on Thames wanted by so many Tories was a betrayal of the popular Brexit which was anti-globalist and tragically – with the overepresentation of the super rich in the media and politics – will never get a hearing. The point is – you might be right on the principle of leaving, but what exactly are we supposed to be looking forward to? You tell us – what are the exciting new opportunities of Brexit? Ones which don’t leave the worst off even worse, or our economy more vulnerable to the interests of states that care less about us than those of Europe? Myb one hope was that lower immigration might increase the bargaining power of labour, but there’s been no sign of that, even in sectors that have lost workers due to Brexit.
See my post above.
This isn’t about Brexit policies. It is about not blaming Brexit for the mess, the UK, Europe and the US find themselves in.
You misunderstand.
Brexiteers don’t need “policies”. They merely need to establish that “policies” are determined by a British parliament, elected by British electors.
You really don’t get it do you?
See my post above.
This isn’t about Brexit policies. It is about not blaming Brexit for the mess, the UK, Europe and the US find themselves in.
.. and a significant chunk of Remainers were in complete ignorance/denial of the ongoing direction of travel of the EU project.
Feel free to outline the good reasons for staying in a non-democratic organisation that is gradually reducing your ability to influence the laws that govern your life.
TBF I think both sides assumed that keeping or changing the structure would solve all our problems. If EU membership was so self-evidently brilliant we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Still listening to the voices?
Mr j Watson, what on earth did you find to talk about before Brexit
It is funny how your comment (asking for specifics – how dare you!) gets negative 22 votes.
I will vote you up!
You can’t ask a Brexiter for their “policies”. They haven’t got any, and they become very irate at being asked to produce one.
So what would you have actually done with Brexit PR? Don’t give us slogans, but rather outline of policies that you feel Country would have accepted as in line with what they voted for?
The issue the vacuous article highlights is far too many Brexiteers thought that was it and after we left some miracle would occur and many of our problems resolve. Demonstrative of totally inadequate thinking and prep. Nonetheless a chance for you to outline what should then have happened.
“With 60% of British voters no longer feeling represented by existing parties,”
I have felt that way for a very long time. I haven’t voted in a national election since 1997 for that reason. (I still have nightmare memories of having voted for that grinning charlatan, Blair). I turn up at the voting booth, look at the list of candidates, and think Orwell:
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
The referendum wasn’t offered as a genuine choice. It was simply Cameron’s attempt to outflank his opponents within his party. In the US such enemies are, I gather, called Deplorables. Cameron called them The Turnip Taliban.
In a parliamentry system Brixit cannot happen without the genuine support of a majority of MPs, and that suppoort was not forthcoming. I watched the expressions of grief on the faces of the losing side the day after the count with amusement. Those faces were not saying “What will happen to my constituents?” They were saying “What about my Villa in Tuscany?” I refer to it, still, as The Polly Toynbee Gurn.
It is somehow logical that a lot of Brits now feel like Brexit was a mistake. And, without any clear path forward and with everything from the NHS to the roads seeming quite grim, like relitigating it for the 9000th time and apportioning blame is the easiest thing to do.
But maybe consider it this way: Brexit was like a massive plaster being ripped off, swilling a lot of problems which had been suppressed (from the failings of the NHS to the roads to devolution) up to the surface where they can no longer be ignored. And that’s even before you get to the question of nation-politics and restoring a more meaningful link between voters and rulers. Rather like an alcoholic finally facing up to their own illness and thus opening up the path to recovery, Britain now has a golden opportunity to clear up issues (EU-related or otherwise) which have been plaguing it for decades.
It is (and will continue to be) very painful to confront and solve these problems. The next 10 years in the UK are going to be a story of sorting through the vast detritus of state, picking every stone up, turning it over, and deciding whether to keep it or throw it out. This will surely generate a lot of controversy, complaint, dissatisfaction (and a lot more Brexit whinging – there’s ALWAYS Brexit whinging). But it is the ONLY way forward.
And, if you think about it, this is a very British way of doing things. Not having a grand plan or a roadmap, but establishing that “OK, we need to do something about XYZ”, having a continual, open discussion and making change. This is the way Britain has changed and transformed for hundreds of years. And, paradoxically, these regular periods of turbulence and dispute have ensured a continuity and overall stability which other countries can’t boast. In other words, Britain, tends to prefer having a series of mini-revolutions which are significant but nowhere near as seismic as the full-on ruptures that other countries have had.
I’m not going to even attempt to forecast where the EU is going to be in 10, 20 years time. But what I can say with absolute certainty is that it lacks this ability to change, reform and renew to the depth required to make it fit for the future. Therefore, large ruptures and meltdowns remain a risk. The hollowing out of nation state structures as mentioned in the article lessen the existential risk to the EU of these episodes of turbulence, as they can be quelled from above (see the euro crisis).
Good point. If our political class had levelled up to us and explained that Brexit would be difficult and a process to be managed gradually, with the plaster being pulled off gradually, without remainers trying to turn the clock back and leavers claiming betrayal, we might have got somewhere.
Always interesting to read your views, Katherine, as someone living on the Continent and therefore not susceptible to the Remainer delusion that everything’s hunky dory in the EU.
My thirty-something son and d-i-l are moving to Hamburg for two years shortly. I suspect they will come back with the realisation that the notion that everything wrong about Britain today is “due to Brexit” is somewhat simplistic and, indeed, inward looking. Ironic: wasn’t it the Leavers who were supposed to be inward looking Little Englanders, with no idea what was going on across the Channel?
P.S. May I tap into your local knowledge? I’m going to be in Vienna later this week. What’s your favourite Heurige, accessible by public transport?
‘not susceptible to the Remainer delusion that everything’s hunky dory in the EU’
Well living in the Netherlands for the last two years, the only differences I’ve noticed have been better pay, lower rents, smoother roads, more time off, cheaper trains, rivers which aren’t full of **** and healthcare which I haven’t experienced yet but which I’ve heard is degenerating (as it becomes privatised and therefore more like the UK’s). What I miss most about the UK is the people – they deserve so much more than the current kleptocrats in charge.
The Netherlands is one of the world’s richest and most efficient economies, and has had better pay, more time off, and better transport networks than the UK for decades, these differences haven’t magically appeared in the last 7 years.
Incidentally, if you think the NHS is more privatised than the Dutch healthcare system, you need to stop reading the Guardian for a few weeks and cool off.
Yes I never denied the deeper roots of our decline and of NL’s success – NL has stronger trade unions, more regulated housing, less short-term flogging of state assets (which funded Thatcher’s money splurging which began this mess for us) in return for worse services.
You’re right on Dutch healthcare being more privatised than ours, though I’m not convinced that the system here, held up as it is by Tufton Street think tanks, produces better outcomes than a well-finded NHS. First, health insurance is mandatory so effectively a tax and secondly NL has the highest social spending in the world (most of which consists of those insurance payments, if I understand the link below correctly). All that for a system where I’ve been advised to get a taxi to hospital if possible in an emergency to avoid the 700 euro I’d roughly pay for an ambulance with my current coverage.
And I try to avoid the guardian and other corporate media where possible, but big money is behind almost all outlets nowadays it seems (this one being no exception).
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2023/04/which-oecd-country-is-highest-social.html
https://mymaastricht.nl/health/emergency/treatment-cost/
Yes I never denied the deeper roots of our decline and of NL’s success – NL has stronger trade unions, more regulated housing, less short-term flogging of state assets (which funded Thatcher’s money splurging which began this mess for us) in return for worse services.
You’re right on Dutch healthcare being more privatised than ours, though I’m not convinced that the system here, held up as it is by Tufton Street think tanks, produces better outcomes than a well-finded NHS. First, health insurance is mandatory so effectively a tax and secondly NL has the highest social spending in the world (most of which consists of those insurance payments, if I understand the link below correctly). All that for a system where I’ve been advised to get a taxi to hospital if possible in an emergency to avoid the 700 euro I’d roughly pay for an ambulance with my current coverage.
And I try to avoid the guardian and other corporate media where possible, but big money is behind almost all outlets nowadays it seems (this one being no exception).
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2023/04/which-oecd-country-is-highest-social.html
https://mymaastricht.nl/health/emergency/treatment-cost/
The Netherlands is one of the world’s richest and most efficient economies, and has had better pay, more time off, and better transport networks than the UK for decades, these differences haven’t magically appeared in the last 7 years.
Incidentally, if you think the NHS is more privatised than the Dutch healthcare system, you need to stop reading the Guardian for a few weeks and cool off.
Of course that is simplistic. Just as the Brexiter notion that everything that was wrong with Britain was the fault of the EU was simplistic. Both positions are populist nonsense. Which is why, as Thatcher noted, citing Attlee, referendums are a device of dictators and demagogues. But then Thatcher had brains, unlike most of today’s Tories.
Australia has had 44 federal Referendums since 1901. It’s a requirement to change the Constitution,
If has Westminster style governance and Common Law. It takes voting seriously. A member of Five Eyes, it has close historical and DNA connections with UK. It even takes part in Eurovision.
It certainly has faults, but is generally regarded as a democratic, open society.
Australia has had 44 federal Referendums since 1901. It’s a requirement to change the Constitution,
If has Westminster style governance and Common Law. It takes voting seriously. A member of Five Eyes, it has close historical and DNA connections with UK. It even takes part in Eurovision.
It certainly has faults, but is generally regarded as a democratic, open society.
I might have a different take on things because I live somewhere else, and yes, every country has its issues. Also: I do think there is a lot of wishful thinking in remainer circles of the “if we were only back in the EU, then X problem would be solved” when really that isn’t the case and handling the discussion that way just isn’t constructive.
However, I will say unreservedly that – for all the issues Austria has – I’m glad I’m here and not in the UK. I do have hope that the UK can turn things around – you are having the necessary painful conversations, but it will take time.
Heuriger suggestions: Stefan Wieselthaler in the Oberlaaer Straße (No. 120) is one of our favourites. It’s about 15 mintues’ walk from the Oberlaa U-Bahn station (the terminus of the red U1 line). Weather later this week looking pants unfortunately, but sitting inside is still nice.
Feel free to get in touch if you want – Google my name (take care with my 1st name, it’s KathArine, not KathErine) and my legal translation website should come up. Use that email address – perhaps we can meet for a coffee? You are on my stomping ground 🙂
Well indeed – who wouldn’t want to live in Red Vienna, one of the world’s havens of social housing, allowing ordinary people a sense of belonging in a beautiful city? I might be romanticising, but the point is hard to deny – housing is cheap there and it’s social democrats who done it.
Well indeed – who wouldn’t want to live in Red Vienna, one of the world’s havens of social housing, allowing ordinary people a sense of belonging in a beautiful city? I might be romanticising, but the point is hard to deny – housing is cheap there and it’s social democrats who done it.
‘not susceptible to the Remainer delusion that everything’s hunky dory in the EU’
Well living in the Netherlands for the last two years, the only differences I’ve noticed have been better pay, lower rents, smoother roads, more time off, cheaper trains, rivers which aren’t full of **** and healthcare which I haven’t experienced yet but which I’ve heard is degenerating (as it becomes privatised and therefore more like the UK’s). What I miss most about the UK is the people – they deserve so much more than the current kleptocrats in charge.
Of course that is simplistic. Just as the Brexiter notion that everything that was wrong with Britain was the fault of the EU was simplistic. Both positions are populist nonsense. Which is why, as Thatcher noted, citing Attlee, referendums are a device of dictators and demagogues. But then Thatcher had brains, unlike most of today’s Tories.
I might have a different take on things because I live somewhere else, and yes, every country has its issues. Also: I do think there is a lot of wishful thinking in remainer circles of the “if we were only back in the EU, then X problem would be solved” when really that isn’t the case and handling the discussion that way just isn’t constructive.
However, I will say unreservedly that – for all the issues Austria has – I’m glad I’m here and not in the UK. I do have hope that the UK can turn things around – you are having the necessary painful conversations, but it will take time.
Heuriger suggestions: Stefan Wieselthaler in the Oberlaaer Straße (No. 120) is one of our favourites. It’s about 15 mintues’ walk from the Oberlaa U-Bahn station (the terminus of the red U1 line). Weather later this week looking pants unfortunately, but sitting inside is still nice.
Feel free to get in touch if you want – Google my name (take care with my 1st name, it’s KathArine, not KathErine) and my legal translation website should come up. Use that email address – perhaps we can meet for a coffee? You are on my stomping ground 🙂
Exactly. My analogy is the difference between adiabatic & isothermal expansion, the former being liable to blow the containing vessel apart.
Good point. If our political class had levelled up to us and explained that Brexit would be difficult and a process to be managed gradually, with the plaster being pulled off gradually, without remainers trying to turn the clock back and leavers claiming betrayal, we might have got somewhere.
Always interesting to read your views, Katherine, as someone living on the Continent and therefore not susceptible to the Remainer delusion that everything’s hunky dory in the EU.
My thirty-something son and d-i-l are moving to Hamburg for two years shortly. I suspect they will come back with the realisation that the notion that everything wrong about Britain today is “due to Brexit” is somewhat simplistic and, indeed, inward looking. Ironic: wasn’t it the Leavers who were supposed to be inward looking Little Englanders, with no idea what was going on across the Channel?
P.S. May I tap into your local knowledge? I’m going to be in Vienna later this week. What’s your favourite Heurige, accessible by public transport?
Exactly. My analogy is the difference between adiabatic & isothermal expansion, the former being liable to blow the containing vessel apart.
It is somehow logical that a lot of Brits now feel like Brexit was a mistake. And, without any clear path forward and with everything from the NHS to the roads seeming quite grim, like relitigating it for the 9000th time and apportioning blame is the easiest thing to do.
But maybe consider it this way: Brexit was like a massive plaster being ripped off, swilling a lot of problems which had been suppressed (from the failings of the NHS to the roads to devolution) up to the surface where they can no longer be ignored. And that’s even before you get to the question of nation-politics and restoring a more meaningful link between voters and rulers. Rather like an alcoholic finally facing up to their own illness and thus opening up the path to recovery, Britain now has a golden opportunity to clear up issues (EU-related or otherwise) which have been plaguing it for decades.
It is (and will continue to be) very painful to confront and solve these problems. The next 10 years in the UK are going to be a story of sorting through the vast detritus of state, picking every stone up, turning it over, and deciding whether to keep it or throw it out. This will surely generate a lot of controversy, complaint, dissatisfaction (and a lot more Brexit whinging – there’s ALWAYS Brexit whinging). But it is the ONLY way forward.
And, if you think about it, this is a very British way of doing things. Not having a grand plan or a roadmap, but establishing that “OK, we need to do something about XYZ”, having a continual, open discussion and making change. This is the way Britain has changed and transformed for hundreds of years. And, paradoxically, these regular periods of turbulence and dispute have ensured a continuity and overall stability which other countries can’t boast. In other words, Britain, tends to prefer having a series of mini-revolutions which are significant but nowhere near as seismic as the full-on ruptures that other countries have had.
I’m not going to even attempt to forecast where the EU is going to be in 10, 20 years time. But what I can say with absolute certainty is that it lacks this ability to change, reform and renew to the depth required to make it fit for the future. Therefore, large ruptures and meltdowns remain a risk. The hollowing out of nation state structures as mentioned in the article lessen the existential risk to the EU of these episodes of turbulence, as they can be quelled from above (see the euro crisis).
Just a suggestion – the clerisy (Members of Parliament, the Civil Service, QUANGOs, big businesses, and the assimilated MSM) are all reluctant to pass up their cosy positions in the Administrative State and engage in the new post-Brexit opportunities to do stuff.
Leavers (mostly) voted to ‘take back control’. Brexit (mostly) broke the grip of EU bureaucrats but did not follow on in establishing a new control regime. Our bureaucrats spend more effort resisting change than getting on with it because they (mostly) hanker after their previous comfortable existence.
That’s not a suggestion – it’s fact !
Being in the EU gave a “constructive ambiguity” of cover to those in government and the civil service in the UK. They continued to draw the same (or better) salaries whilst enjoying actually reduced responsibilities plus the added bonus of being able to pass the blame for anything that went wrong on to the EU.
Did the size of the state shrink when countries joined the EU and it increasingly centralised power ? Did the Bank of France shrink in workforce or budget after the ECB and Euro were founded ? No. Quite the reverse.
It’s Parkinson’s Law 101.
We will not improve UK productivity and competitiveness until we can break the bureaucracy. Which is clearly deeply embedded and a law unto itself. And largely home grown.
Truly amazing to think we once ruled 300+ million Indians with an ICS* of about 1,200 souls.
(* Indian Civil Service.)
And that the total number that ever served over the whole history of the Sudan Civil Service was about 500.
But they didn’t have Facebook, Tik Tok, Twitter or Instagram to deal with then.
No indeed, just a Punkhawallah, a bottle of decent Gin and a copy of Thucydides.
No indeed, just a Punkhawallah, a bottle of decent Gin and a copy of Thucydides.
I think the thing here is that in that era we could better balance the bureaucracy with the practical need to get stuff done and run profitable businesses and remain competitive internationally.
One key problem seems to be that we actually take law enforcement and regulation both literally and seriously in this country – and far more so than many other European countries (generally the further south and east you go, the more “flexible” it all gets). And that’s a strong reason why we shouldn’t over-regulate in the UK – we can’t trust ourselves not to overdo it.
It is not directly the fault of the EU that we have this problem. But the bureaucractice nature of the EU and its core assumption that problems can be solved by more regulation (which I question) plays into our weaknesses.
I’ll now attempt to channel my inner Charles Stanhope and suggest that a lot of Britain’s success in the past may have been due to a rather reckless and buccaneering style of getting things done within a rather looser regulatory framework – for example privateering was at one time looked on quite favourably, though actually piracy was always punished.
‘we actually take law enforcement and regulation both literally and seriously in this country – and far more so than many other European countries (generally the further south and east you go, the more “flexible” it all gets)’
So we should be upholding the Balkan countries as bastions of productivity and efficiency? That’s a new one I have to say. Very surprised you didn’t go in the other direction (north west) to countries that are actually known to score better in this regard – NL, Denmark, Sweden etc. These by the way do often have freer economies (insofar as we can trust the claims of the IEA), but crucially have strong state redistribution and controls on how much people can be charged on housing and health, which gurantees a minimum of wealth for ordinary people that I’d say is essential to an entrepreneurial population wasting less of its income on rents or bankrupting itself on unaffordable healthcare.
I think you’ve misread my comment !
I said the exact opposite of what you think I did.
We’re in complete agreement in our admiration for the “north west” (which would then have to include ourselves – I hope you can live with that).
I do not agree that highly redistributive policies correlate to entrepreneuralism. In my experience, too much welfare has the opposite effect.
Right I may have – so you’re arguing for more balance between bureaucracy and profitability, but really saying that regulation is right now the bigger stranglehold on growth. Couldn’t disagree more – look how much unproductive rent seeking is encouraged by our under-regulated housing market and the lack of tax on the windfall profits on companies given state handouts for terrible services (trains, gas, water etc).
In my experience, and judging by the ventures of many successful companies, including those which helped launch Charles’ beloved empire, it was state backing that was key to their success. I agree with Mariana Mazzucato that the state can be entrepreneurial, and often is most so when it comes to big mission projects.
Right I may have – so you’re arguing for more balance between bureaucracy and profitability, but really saying that regulation is right now the bigger stranglehold on growth. Couldn’t disagree more – look how much unproductive rent seeking is encouraged by our under-regulated housing market and the lack of tax on the windfall profits on companies given state handouts for terrible services (trains, gas, water etc).
In my experience, and judging by the ventures of many successful companies, including those which helped launch Charles’ beloved empire, it was state backing that was key to their success. I agree with Mariana Mazzucato that the state can be entrepreneurial, and often is most so when it comes to big mission projects.
I think you’ve misread my comment !
I said the exact opposite of what you think I did.
We’re in complete agreement in our admiration for the “north west” (which would then have to include ourselves – I hope you can live with that).
I do not agree that highly redistributive policies correlate to entrepreneuralism. In my experience, too much welfare has the opposite effect.
‘we actually take law enforcement and regulation both literally and seriously in this country – and far more so than many other European countries (generally the further south and east you go, the more “flexible” it all gets)’
So we should be upholding the Balkan countries as bastions of productivity and efficiency? That’s a new one I have to say. Very surprised you didn’t go in the other direction (north west) to countries that are actually known to score better in this regard – NL, Denmark, Sweden etc. These by the way do often have freer economies (insofar as we can trust the claims of the IEA), but crucially have strong state redistribution and controls on how much people can be charged on housing and health, which gurantees a minimum of wealth for ordinary people that I’d say is essential to an entrepreneurial population wasting less of its income on rents or bankrupting itself on unaffordable healthcare.
Plus a corrupt and caste-ridden Indian society, and a lot of guns to deal with any dissent. That what you want mate?
And that the total number that ever served over the whole history of the Sudan Civil Service was about 500.
But they didn’t have Facebook, Tik Tok, Twitter or Instagram to deal with then.
I think the thing here is that in that era we could better balance the bureaucracy with the practical need to get stuff done and run profitable businesses and remain competitive internationally.
One key problem seems to be that we actually take law enforcement and regulation both literally and seriously in this country – and far more so than many other European countries (generally the further south and east you go, the more “flexible” it all gets). And that’s a strong reason why we shouldn’t over-regulate in the UK – we can’t trust ourselves not to overdo it.
It is not directly the fault of the EU that we have this problem. But the bureaucractice nature of the EU and its core assumption that problems can be solved by more regulation (which I question) plays into our weaknesses.
I’ll now attempt to channel my inner Charles Stanhope and suggest that a lot of Britain’s success in the past may have been due to a rather reckless and buccaneering style of getting things done within a rather looser regulatory framework – for example privateering was at one time looked on quite favourably, though actually piracy was always punished.
Plus a corrupt and caste-ridden Indian society, and a lot of guns to deal with any dissent. That what you want mate?
‘We will not improve UK productivity and competitiveness until we can break the bureaucracy.’
If leaving the EU is an essential part of breaking that bureaucracy, then an irony here must be that the UK is actually less productive than its western European competitors (a phenomenon referred to as the ‘productivity gap’)
As in any market there are different segments.
There are parts of the UK economy which truly are world class and highly productive and which we export all over the world. Think finance and anything to do with business services, some areas of advanced technology and consulting, entertainment and media.
In these areas we are well ahead of other European countries.
Then there are some areas dragging down the team average. Hand car washes (which used to be automated). Continually importing unskilled workers.
Then the ever increasing army of bureaucrats who’s job is largely to *prevent stuff getting done* and for things which are permitted to *continually drive up the costs*. Thus we have ever higher energy costs – most of which are government levies. And ever more regulations about safety – annual inspections on everything related to rental properties where we would not require them in our own houses. Things like this.
As I stated, EU regulations have not helped us here. Those who don’t bother to enforce the regulations clearly don’t need to bear the costs.
Don’t recall claiming that the UK was behind in productivity in every single sector. Of course there is nuance. This is a general difference, and sure we have some competetive advantages – as you rightly point out – such as in the arts and entertainment (out of interest what is your favourite Tory policy that has advanced our edge in that domain? Cutting the budgets of arts and humanities departments? Or maybe making it impossibe for British musicians to tour Europe for more than three months at a time?)
And where do private landlords and gas company shareholders enjoying sky high profits off the backs of working people fit in your gallery of productive and non-productive actors? Gas prices are way lower in France, house prices are lower in the Netherands? Explain how that is the case without referring to the fact that gas companies are majority state owned in France and that the Netherlands has a more regulated housing sector. Where an essential service like health, housing or energy is being delivered, financial regulation is essential if those services are to serve need rather than demand, people rather than profit, people who get their money through work rather than wealth etc
Don’t recall claiming that the UK was behind in productivity in every single sector. Of course there is nuance. This is a general difference, and sure we have some competetive advantages – as you rightly point out – such as in the arts and entertainment (out of interest what is your favourite Tory policy that has advanced our edge in that domain? Cutting the budgets of arts and humanities departments? Or maybe making it impossibe for British musicians to tour Europe for more than three months at a time?)
And where do private landlords and gas company shareholders enjoying sky high profits off the backs of working people fit in your gallery of productive and non-productive actors? Gas prices are way lower in France, house prices are lower in the Netherands? Explain how that is the case without referring to the fact that gas companies are majority state owned in France and that the Netherlands has a more regulated housing sector. Where an essential service like health, housing or energy is being delivered, financial regulation is essential if those services are to serve need rather than demand, people rather than profit, people who get their money through work rather than wealth etc
As in any market there are different segments.
There are parts of the UK economy which truly are world class and highly productive and which we export all over the world. Think finance and anything to do with business services, some areas of advanced technology and consulting, entertainment and media.
In these areas we are well ahead of other European countries.
Then there are some areas dragging down the team average. Hand car washes (which used to be automated). Continually importing unskilled workers.
Then the ever increasing army of bureaucrats who’s job is largely to *prevent stuff getting done* and for things which are permitted to *continually drive up the costs*. Thus we have ever higher energy costs – most of which are government levies. And ever more regulations about safety – annual inspections on everything related to rental properties where we would not require them in our own houses. Things like this.
As I stated, EU regulations have not helped us here. Those who don’t bother to enforce the regulations clearly don’t need to bear the costs.
Truly amazing to think we once ruled 300+ million Indians with an ICS* of about 1,200 souls.
(* Indian Civil Service.)
‘We will not improve UK productivity and competitiveness until we can break the bureaucracy.’
If leaving the EU is an essential part of breaking that bureaucracy, then an irony here must be that the UK is actually less productive than its western European competitors (a phenomenon referred to as the ‘productivity gap’)
‘Leavers (mostly) voted to ‘take back control’. Brexit (mostly) broke the grip of EU bureaucrats but did not follow on in establishing a new control regime.’
Indeed, and this is I think a very important point. I am very critical of REMAIN as both an idea and as a political construct. But that does not in itself excuse those of us of the LEAVE mindset (and to be clear I include myself here) from having to answer some very searching questions.
In many ways we’d won before 2016. The Treaty included A50 – an explicit acknowledgement that a country could leave the EU. All of the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats had at some point put out manifestos which envisaged an in-out referendum or talked about ‘referendum locks.’ The idea of leaving the EU, or at least having a referendum was not some flight of fancy. We did exactly half the job. The fact that we did it well is of no consolation. Search high and low amongst the material produced by the political parties, not a one of them had any vision of what would happen if the referendum they all envisaged in their manifestos resulted in a LEAVE vote. Similarly do a literature search of EU documents or of academic thinking: the literature on the leave scenario explicit on the face of the Treaty is paper thin. Given that this was at or about the time of the single currency crisis it is, to my mind, unforgivable that so few people on either side of the debate gave any thought to what a leave vote would mean.
Worse, opinion polling for what it’s worth for decades had shown that a leave vote in the UK was a far from theoretical outcome.
We did half the job and left the other half to elites. Don’t get me wrong by the way – I’m not saying for a moment that defining and reifying a process of national renewal away from the EU’s globalist open agenda and its dislocations was ever going to be easy. I am also very aware that a 52:48 vote points rather more in the direction of a Switzerland or EEA option than what became known as a ‘hard leave.’ That is not the trivial point some on the leave side seem to think it is.
There was no leave vision because we didn’t push them to produce it, to put in not just the electoral heft but also the brainpower. That’s not the fault of REMAIN.
So..EU (directly or indirectly?) was responsible for the Iraq/Libya decision?
Light Touch Regulation of The City?!
That’s not a suggestion – it’s fact !
Being in the EU gave a “constructive ambiguity” of cover to those in government and the civil service in the UK. They continued to draw the same (or better) salaries whilst enjoying actually reduced responsibilities plus the added bonus of being able to pass the blame for anything that went wrong on to the EU.
Did the size of the state shrink when countries joined the EU and it increasingly centralised power ? Did the Bank of France shrink in workforce or budget after the ECB and Euro were founded ? No. Quite the reverse.
It’s Parkinson’s Law 101.
We will not improve UK productivity and competitiveness until we can break the bureaucracy. Which is clearly deeply embedded and a law unto itself. And largely home grown.
‘Leavers (mostly) voted to ‘take back control’. Brexit (mostly) broke the grip of EU bureaucrats but did not follow on in establishing a new control regime.’
Indeed, and this is I think a very important point. I am very critical of REMAIN as both an idea and as a political construct. But that does not in itself excuse those of us of the LEAVE mindset (and to be clear I include myself here) from having to answer some very searching questions.
In many ways we’d won before 2016. The Treaty included A50 – an explicit acknowledgement that a country could leave the EU. All of the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats had at some point put out manifestos which envisaged an in-out referendum or talked about ‘referendum locks.’ The idea of leaving the EU, or at least having a referendum was not some flight of fancy. We did exactly half the job. The fact that we did it well is of no consolation. Search high and low amongst the material produced by the political parties, not a one of them had any vision of what would happen if the referendum they all envisaged in their manifestos resulted in a LEAVE vote. Similarly do a literature search of EU documents or of academic thinking: the literature on the leave scenario explicit on the face of the Treaty is paper thin. Given that this was at or about the time of the single currency crisis it is, to my mind, unforgivable that so few people on either side of the debate gave any thought to what a leave vote would mean.
Worse, opinion polling for what it’s worth for decades had shown that a leave vote in the UK was a far from theoretical outcome.
We did half the job and left the other half to elites. Don’t get me wrong by the way – I’m not saying for a moment that defining and reifying a process of national renewal away from the EU’s globalist open agenda and its dislocations was ever going to be easy. I am also very aware that a 52:48 vote points rather more in the direction of a Switzerland or EEA option than what became known as a ‘hard leave.’ That is not the trivial point some on the leave side seem to think it is.
There was no leave vision because we didn’t push them to produce it, to put in not just the electoral heft but also the brainpower. That’s not the fault of REMAIN.
So..EU (directly or indirectly?) was responsible for the Iraq/Libya decision?
Light Touch Regulation of The City?!
Just a suggestion – the clerisy (Members of Parliament, the Civil Service, QUANGOs, big businesses, and the assimilated MSM) are all reluctant to pass up their cosy positions in the Administrative State and engage in the new post-Brexit opportunities to do stuff.
Leavers (mostly) voted to ‘take back control’. Brexit (mostly) broke the grip of EU bureaucrats but did not follow on in establishing a new control regime. Our bureaucrats spend more effort resisting change than getting on with it because they (mostly) hanker after their previous comfortable existence.
It’s not a soft and gradual creep back to Brussels that we need to be worried about. It’s a lazy amble in to the jaws of the monstrous hard supranational power that is being constructed in Geneva that is the clear and present threat. While the UK remains a WHO member state, it cannot be an independent nation state.
The WHO has an openly stated ambition to grab hard supranational power via a “game changing” “pandemic treaty” and amendments to the IHR that will give its communist leader the power to declare a health emergency and legally to require member states to implement “whole of government, whole of society” measures. The same leader has described the “pandemic” or “Disease X” as “inevitable”.
The absence in this article of any mention of the WHO and the UN more generally is just one more small piece evidence of how far we have to go in resisting this tyrannical, corporatist attack by the communist-led WHO on the most fundamental basic tenets of our supposedly liberal democracy. Wake up, Phil.
The WHO and its arch apparatchik, Dominic Cummings Esq.
The WHO is but one tentacle of this anti-democratic (and I would argue, profoundly anti-human) beast.
We need to get out from under the influence of the the supranational structures of UN (and all of the SDG commitments, and downstream agencies), the IMF, etc. And of course, the ‘private’ rulers-of-the-world clubs such as WEF, the Trilateral Commission and the CfR.
And it would be great to see some UnHerd reporting on the exceedingly dangerous but less well known power centres like the ISD (Institute for Strategic Dialogue), from which such undemocratic astroturfing operations as ‘C40‘ and the ‘Strong Cities Network‘ flow. These organisations are, very successfully, subverting and overthrowing democracies, by building technocratic (arguably fascist) structures up around them.
The total capture of the dullards and grifters that make up our political class is disappointing enough, but the real death blow has been dealt by the capture of the journalistic class, the media. Without a sentinel to alert the people to what shenanigans are happening in the dark halls of power, we are being driven right back into totalitarianism, albeit one that has shiny new tech tools and very fluffy rhetoric about the the climate, and community, and justice, and equity. Scary times.
The WHO and its arch apparatchik, Dominic Cummings Esq.
The WHO is but one tentacle of this anti-democratic (and I would argue, profoundly anti-human) beast.
We need to get out from under the influence of the the supranational structures of UN (and all of the SDG commitments, and downstream agencies), the IMF, etc. And of course, the ‘private’ rulers-of-the-world clubs such as WEF, the Trilateral Commission and the CfR.
And it would be great to see some UnHerd reporting on the exceedingly dangerous but less well known power centres like the ISD (Institute for Strategic Dialogue), from which such undemocratic astroturfing operations as ‘C40‘ and the ‘Strong Cities Network‘ flow. These organisations are, very successfully, subverting and overthrowing democracies, by building technocratic (arguably fascist) structures up around them.
The total capture of the dullards and grifters that make up our political class is disappointing enough, but the real death blow has been dealt by the capture of the journalistic class, the media. Without a sentinel to alert the people to what shenanigans are happening in the dark halls of power, we are being driven right back into totalitarianism, albeit one that has shiny new tech tools and very fluffy rhetoric about the the climate, and community, and justice, and equity. Scary times.
It’s not a soft and gradual creep back to Brussels that we need to be worried about. It’s a lazy amble in to the jaws of the monstrous hard supranational power that is being constructed in Geneva that is the clear and present threat. While the UK remains a WHO member state, it cannot be an independent nation state.
The WHO has an openly stated ambition to grab hard supranational power via a “game changing” “pandemic treaty” and amendments to the IHR that will give its communist leader the power to declare a health emergency and legally to require member states to implement “whole of government, whole of society” measures. The same leader has described the “pandemic” or “Disease X” as “inevitable”.
The absence in this article of any mention of the WHO and the UN more generally is just one more small piece evidence of how far we have to go in resisting this tyrannical, corporatist attack by the communist-led WHO on the most fundamental basic tenets of our supposedly liberal democracy. Wake up, Phil.
The author of the article points out that a lot of the issues the UK is experiencing at the moment are also experienced in the rest of Europe. He then mentions that there should be some sort of change to Britain’s way of electing politicians to get out of said malaise. But what? All those other European countries which are having the same problems also have a plethora of different electoral systems.
So that doesn’t really suggest grounds for optimism that a new magical way of voting will unlock the wisdom of the people and bring about a renaissance of UK policy-making. Ultimately, unless there is some meat on the bone in his book that he isn’t mentioning, his program appears to be yet more of “something must be done! this is something! therefore, we should do it! Rah, national renewal, rah!”
You’re correct, but at least those other electoral systems allow for smaller parties to have influence, such as the recent gains by the Dutch Farmers. The current UK system is a shambles, whereby a party can win a majority on a third of the vote, and UKIP once polled around 12% but won a single seat out of 650.
Without a Donald Trump UK is lost – and I do not believe there is such a person. Not even a Desantis, or the real amazing Vivek Ramaswamy (he is Amazing! and running for Republican President) – AND on the Democrat side (in the worst interview ever conducted in any political interview – by Freddy, you can see him here)
RFK Jr. The man who still thinks truth matters and that the DC swamp is an alligator infested sewer, haha…Vivek Ramaswamy is a virtual disciple of RFK, but is on the other party – wild, two men on opposite sides, but both totally for America! Britain only has Politicians who hate UK.
In USA 4 Men who are 100% a thousand times better than anything UK has going. People who could yet save the world in its last cliff-hanging second.
Britian just has a Biden-Kamala level of leaders.
But then West Europe is an equally bad place.
here is Vivek Ramaswamy
https://rumble.com/v2rhsba-june-1-2023.html
He has a future! I would love him to be Trump’s VP – now that would be a Ticket! Could just save the world.
What did Trump actually achieve? Of all his campaign promises such as the wall what actually came into being except tax cuts for the wealthy? As much as I liked the fact he upset the status quo and he was horribly attacked by the media, the bloke was useless and a simpleton
I agree he’s a complete mountebank – however he didn’t start any wars which I think is something worth celebrating
The US was energy independent and a net exporter under Trump. He normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and the Arab states through the Abraham Accords. Employment for blacks and Hispanics was at an all-time high. He refused to continue suicidal trade agreements with China, and ended insane shipments of cash to our enemies in the Middle East. Russia most certainly would not have invaded Ukraine. He exposed the uniparty and total corruption of the Justice and State departments, as well as the un-elected bureaucratic control over American lives.
Just a few things the “useless bloke” did in office, despite the entire government, media, education, corporate, entertainment, and tech establishments working day an night to destroy him from the time he first announced his candidacy.
How many “simpletons” could manage that?
I agree he’s a complete mountebank – however he didn’t start any wars which I think is something worth celebrating
The US was energy independent and a net exporter under Trump. He normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and the Arab states through the Abraham Accords. Employment for blacks and Hispanics was at an all-time high. He refused to continue suicidal trade agreements with China, and ended insane shipments of cash to our enemies in the Middle East. Russia most certainly would not have invaded Ukraine. He exposed the uniparty and total corruption of the Justice and State departments, as well as the un-elected bureaucratic control over American lives.
Just a few things the “useless bloke” did in office, despite the entire government, media, education, corporate, entertainment, and tech establishments working day an night to destroy him from the time he first announced his candidacy.
How many “simpletons” could manage that?
Vivek Ramaswamy – that’s the Putin fan-boy isn’t it?
I suggest you actually listen to what he has to say on the subject (see link above) before throwing around childish insults.
I suggest you actually listen to what he has to say on the subject (see link above) before throwing around childish insults.
here is Vivek Ramaswamy
https://rumble.com/v2rhsba-june-1-2023.html
He has a future! I would love him to be Trump’s VP – now that would be a Ticket! Could just save the world.
What did Trump actually achieve? Of all his campaign promises such as the wall what actually came into being except tax cuts for the wealthy? As much as I liked the fact he upset the status quo and he was horribly attacked by the media, the bloke was useless and a simpleton
Vivek Ramaswamy – that’s the Putin fan-boy isn’t it?
I don’t think he is arguing for a different electoral system but for something different we can elect. The need for that is clear with so few people having any faith in out current politicians of all parties, however what is that something different?
There is no magic electoral system. Some forms of PR on the Continent that elect people from a national party slate encourage further distance from the electorate.
Having said that, creating multi-seat constituencies for Westminster would absolutely set the cat amongst the pigeons – the concept of a “safe” seat or any kind of Red or Blue wall would disappear. Governments would be far more representative of the electorate, especially if a Single Transferable Vote gave the people real leverage in applying their preferences to the local pool of candidates.
You would be more likely to see coalitions forming on a regular basis, which would mean that no single party political platform would be likely to be enacted in full, but the one thing you could guarantee in all the horse trading and compromise is that any grand bargains would be aimed at bringing as many people inside the tent as possible, rather than leaving them behind.
You’re correct, but at least those other electoral systems allow for smaller parties to have influence, such as the recent gains by the Dutch Farmers. The current UK system is a shambles, whereby a party can win a majority on a third of the vote, and UKIP once polled around 12% but won a single seat out of 650.
Without a Donald Trump UK is lost – and I do not believe there is such a person. Not even a Desantis, or the real amazing Vivek Ramaswamy (he is Amazing! and running for Republican President) – AND on the Democrat side (in the worst interview ever conducted in any political interview – by Freddy, you can see him here)
RFK Jr. The man who still thinks truth matters and that the DC swamp is an alligator infested sewer, haha…Vivek Ramaswamy is a virtual disciple of RFK, but is on the other party – wild, two men on opposite sides, but both totally for America! Britain only has Politicians who hate UK.
In USA 4 Men who are 100% a thousand times better than anything UK has going. People who could yet save the world in its last cliff-hanging second.
Britian just has a Biden-Kamala level of leaders.
But then West Europe is an equally bad place.
I don’t think he is arguing for a different electoral system but for something different we can elect. The need for that is clear with so few people having any faith in out current politicians of all parties, however what is that something different?
There is no magic electoral system. Some forms of PR on the Continent that elect people from a national party slate encourage further distance from the electorate.
Having said that, creating multi-seat constituencies for Westminster would absolutely set the cat amongst the pigeons – the concept of a “safe” seat or any kind of Red or Blue wall would disappear. Governments would be far more representative of the electorate, especially if a Single Transferable Vote gave the people real leverage in applying their preferences to the local pool of candidates.
You would be more likely to see coalitions forming on a regular basis, which would mean that no single party political platform would be likely to be enacted in full, but the one thing you could guarantee in all the horse trading and compromise is that any grand bargains would be aimed at bringing as many people inside the tent as possible, rather than leaving them behind.
The author of the article points out that a lot of the issues the UK is experiencing at the moment are also experienced in the rest of Europe. He then mentions that there should be some sort of change to Britain’s way of electing politicians to get out of said malaise. But what? All those other European countries which are having the same problems also have a plethora of different electoral systems.
So that doesn’t really suggest grounds for optimism that a new magical way of voting will unlock the wisdom of the people and bring about a renaissance of UK policy-making. Ultimately, unless there is some meat on the bone in his book that he isn’t mentioning, his program appears to be yet more of “something must be done! this is something! therefore, we should do it! Rah, national renewal, rah!”
In the run up to June 2016’s referendum I was undecided. For me we hadn’t completely turned the corner from the 2008 crash. I imagined if it all went ‘IMF’ we’d have some support from the EU. However I didn’t like our manufacturing being induced away by ‘favourable’ conditions. I didn’t like us being told what to do by unelected faceless bureacrats. Nor do a significant number of europeans.
I used to work in export sales. Europe was by far the worst world area to run. They ignored EU rules and not surprisingly protected their own work forces to our detriment while we typically followed the rules.
As the divorce unfolded it became bitter, personal. I’m still astounded at the barefaced lies and manipulation of stats the more rabid remainers came up with. Usually because of some lost business deal or access to holiday homes abroad.
It could have been friendly; gone our separate ways. Deliberate obstruction and ill feeling became the order of the day, sadly much from our own side. Did we punish our ex colonies? In fact we abandoned Africa with our liberal virtue, much to our shame.
Many’s the time I wished we’d stayed if only for access to a bolthole should socialism take hold here.
Of the bigger countries we had a better time with Covid. Europe isn’t setting a shining example over Ukraine, Dutch farming, African Free trade restrictions, the southern Med economies. Mad Merkel letting floods of immigrants in. Macron who thinks the Elysee Palace is the centre of the universe.
I doubt the EU want us back and I doubt we want the Euro. I’d prefer a Poland, Scandinavia, Baltic, North Sea axis coming over the horizon. Just keep the socialists out of the cockpit.
Excellent comment, really on the spot. Thank you.
Excellent comment, really on the spot. Thank you.
In the run up to June 2016’s referendum I was undecided. For me we hadn’t completely turned the corner from the 2008 crash. I imagined if it all went ‘IMF’ we’d have some support from the EU. However I didn’t like our manufacturing being induced away by ‘favourable’ conditions. I didn’t like us being told what to do by unelected faceless bureacrats. Nor do a significant number of europeans.
I used to work in export sales. Europe was by far the worst world area to run. They ignored EU rules and not surprisingly protected their own work forces to our detriment while we typically followed the rules.
As the divorce unfolded it became bitter, personal. I’m still astounded at the barefaced lies and manipulation of stats the more rabid remainers came up with. Usually because of some lost business deal or access to holiday homes abroad.
It could have been friendly; gone our separate ways. Deliberate obstruction and ill feeling became the order of the day, sadly much from our own side. Did we punish our ex colonies? In fact we abandoned Africa with our liberal virtue, much to our shame.
Many’s the time I wished we’d stayed if only for access to a bolthole should socialism take hold here.
Of the bigger countries we had a better time with Covid. Europe isn’t setting a shining example over Ukraine, Dutch farming, African Free trade restrictions, the southern Med economies. Mad Merkel letting floods of immigrants in. Macron who thinks the Elysee Palace is the centre of the universe.
I doubt the EU want us back and I doubt we want the Euro. I’d prefer a Poland, Scandinavia, Baltic, North Sea axis coming over the horizon. Just keep the socialists out of the cockpit.
Have you forgotten the old adage “Rome wasn’t built in a day”?
Our late membership of the wretched EU was little better than being “shackled to a corpse “, and a putrefying one at that.
However, and with delicious irony, the Gods decided that the progenitor of Brexit*would also be its nemesis, by his absolutely appalling response to the great COVID scam.
Revealing himself to be a ‘Lockdown Freak’ of Chinese proportions, he ensured that HMG was paralysed by an attack of ‘lack of moral fibre’ not seen since the feeble days of Tony Blair.
Thus for two long years of inertia, absolutely nothing was done to repeal the vast raft of EU regulations that had been dumped on us in the previous forty!
Given the current hysteria over Mr Putin and the somewhat irritating migration/invasion crisis, it is very unlikely this situation will change in the foreseeable future.
(* Dominic Cummings Esq.)
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/delay-to-bonfire-of-eu-laws-merits-a-major-sigh-of-relief/679106.article
“… absolutely nothing was done to repeal the vast raft of EU regulations that had been dumped on us in the previous forty!”
List out your top 100 (at least) damaging EU regs, giving concrete examples of why they were bad for British industry.
Since you hate these regs so much, I’m sure you’ll be bursting at the seams with cogent reasons lol
The banning of newspapers to wrap our iconic ‘fish and chips’ in.
and that delicious printer’s ink – toxic but delicious.
and that delicious printer’s ink – toxic but delicious.
The banning of newspapers to wrap our iconic ‘fish and chips’ in.
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/delay-to-bonfire-of-eu-laws-merits-a-major-sigh-of-relief/679106.article
“… absolutely nothing was done to repeal the vast raft of EU regulations that had been dumped on us in the previous forty!”
List out your top 100 (at least) damaging EU regs, giving concrete examples of why they were bad for British industry.
Since you hate these regs so much, I’m sure you’ll be bursting at the seams with cogent reasons lol
Have you forgotten the old adage “Rome wasn’t built in a day”?
Our late membership of the wretched EU was little better than being “shackled to a corpse “, and a putrefying one at that.
However, and with delicious irony, the Gods decided that the progenitor of Brexit*would also be its nemesis, by his absolutely appalling response to the great COVID scam.
Revealing himself to be a ‘Lockdown Freak’ of Chinese proportions, he ensured that HMG was paralysed by an attack of ‘lack of moral fibre’ not seen since the feeble days of Tony Blair.
Thus for two long years of inertia, absolutely nothing was done to repeal the vast raft of EU regulations that had been dumped on us in the previous forty!
Given the current hysteria over Mr Putin and the somewhat irritating migration/invasion crisis, it is very unlikely this situation will change in the foreseeable future.
(* Dominic Cummings Esq.)
If this is in truth a plea for proportional representation ( which I suspect it is) I have to say I find the prospect of more Lib Dems, Greens and their like in the House of Commons a rather frightening prospect. What we need are less half baked Napoleons – not the certitude of having a number of them as permanent fixtures in the House. Less intrusive Government whose mistakes can be corrected at the ballot box please. Not a conspiratorial bunch of low grade MPs with simplistic agendas arrogantly deciding between themselves what Government will be best for us.
Why? I’m not a fan of those parties but why do you think they should have less representation than their share of the vote? Do you only believe in democracy when it only delivers the result you want?
One answer is that proportional representation from party lists produces party men/ lobby fodder. There is still a place for the individual in politics. For instance one of the reasons that the Tories lost the recent(ish) Tiverton and Honiton bye- election is that their candidate was hopeless whereas the Liberal was at least plausible.
Thanks. That’s a fair point to make. My concern is that too much “balance “ produces a lot of noise and minority views ( even extreme views) gaining too much sway. I think I want a government with a mandate from the largest share of the public vote and not a compromise Cabinet delivered by politicians keen for office. For all its imperfections our current set up still seems better than the other possible constructs.
One answer is that proportional representation from party lists produces party men/ lobby fodder. There is still a place for the individual in politics. For instance one of the reasons that the Tories lost the recent(ish) Tiverton and Honiton bye- election is that their candidate was hopeless whereas the Liberal was at least plausible.
Thanks. That’s a fair point to make. My concern is that too much “balance “ produces a lot of noise and minority views ( even extreme views) gaining too much sway. I think I want a government with a mandate from the largest share of the public vote and not a compromise Cabinet delivered by politicians keen for office. For all its imperfections our current set up still seems better than the other possible constructs.
No, what we need are fewer crooks transferring our money to the people they really work for and voting to pump raw sewage into our rivers. PR would probably have delivered Farage a seat in the house, but if that’s how people are voting then I would have the good grace to accept it.
Why? I’m not a fan of those parties but why do you think they should have less representation than their share of the vote? Do you only believe in democracy when it only delivers the result you want?
No, what we need are fewer crooks transferring our money to the people they really work for and voting to pump raw sewage into our rivers. PR would probably have delivered Farage a seat in the house, but if that’s how people are voting then I would have the good grace to accept it.
If this is in truth a plea for proportional representation ( which I suspect it is) I have to say I find the prospect of more Lib Dems, Greens and their like in the House of Commons a rather frightening prospect. What we need are less half baked Napoleons – not the certitude of having a number of them as permanent fixtures in the House. Less intrusive Government whose mistakes can be corrected at the ballot box please. Not a conspiratorial bunch of low grade MPs with simplistic agendas arrogantly deciding between themselves what Government will be best for us.
I hate articles like this. It says that everyone else got it wrong, but the author has the magic bullet, the solution, but doesn’t say what it is, just gives us a word salad of meaningless soundbites.
The general consensus, according to myriad polls, is that Brexit has failed, largely because it has. It was sold to the electorate with both ‘take back control’ and economic components, the former that we could make laws that suited us better and have our own immigration policy, also tailored to meet our needs (hence even Nigel Farage talked about the Australian style points system, which we’ve effectively ended up with), while economically the EU somehow would not negotiate in their own self-interest (Negotiation Rule 101) but give us a deal with all of the benefits and none of the obligations, the rest of the world would magically follow suit, the economy would be turbocharged, there would be loads more money for public services, high wages and high skills would be the order of the day, and we’d live happily ever after. Good enough pitch to win the referendum, but always a fantasy.
So what now? The author dismisses trade agreements, without even attempting to explain how we make the things the public want to consume, or grow the food the public wants to eat ourselves. He talks about investing in ‘National Renewal’ but not how to grow the economy to pay for it, or whether National Renewal needs to take notice of the various independence movements.
At the moment, the Brexit Elite, the politicians and their media allies, veer between pretending that it’s all going great or taking comfort in the ‘stab in the back myth’, that it would have been great if it wasn’t for their all powerful shadowy enemies.
Anyone else ever wonder how Margaret Thatcher and Clement Attlee both managed to work with the civil servants of their day and deliver transformational change, from totally opposite ends of the political spectrum, with no mention of ‘The Blob’, while Liz Truss, say, claims that her downfall was not caused by her being a clueless ideologue, with no clue of real world economics, but by the evil Blob?
No, probably not.
However, the Civil Service of today is clearly not the same as that in Attlee or Thatcher’s day, so the comparison isn’t totally valid.
That said, I’m sure it does help if the Prime Minister commands the respect of the Civil Service in the first place and has sufficient authority. Some of our recent PMs are not without fault here.
But Civil Servants actively campaigning and working against government policies – and doing so in public as they are currently – would never have happened 30 years ago. It is not the job of Civil Servants to either make or interpret the law or act according to their supposed consciences. We have – and pay hansomely for – MPs and judges to do that and elections for those who want things to be done differently.
Most of my career was spent in the private sector, but the last 20 years or so I was a programme/project manager and took a job for the last few years before I retired working in the Cabinet Office. My experience was that the civil servants, both there and across Whitehall, who I worked with were fiercely ambitious and committed to delivering what the Minister wanted, whether it was a good idea or not, because that way their careers prospered. I saw absolutely no evidence of any kind of ideological pushback.
It’s also worth remembering that one of Johnson’s first acts was to sack his Cabinet Secretary to put in Simon Case, who he saw as more compliant, and Truss sacked Tom Scholar at the Treasury as soon as she began her brief, mad reign. There has been a fair amount of churn generally of top civil servants who didn’t please their political masters.
I think the idea of ‘the blob’ is just too convenient, a way to avoid responsibility or accountability when things go wrong. My own view, for what it’s worth, is that the civil service is actually too eager to please these days.
That’s encouraging news. I’ve had no direct experience with the Civil Service and have no plans to correct that.
I’m sure there’s plenty of fault to go round and it’s not all on one side.
I forget to state the obvious – a lack of clear government direction and policy doesn’t help matters. Nor does appointing ministers with no relevant experience or even interest and motivation in the departments they are assigned. Nor does changing ministers so frequently. So I wouldn’t be surprised if Civil Servants are left trying to second guess what their masters actually want and having to look over their shoulders to consider what the future minister might think of today’s initiative.
It’s not an environment I wish to work in and not one likely to produce great results.
As with the DVLA, I actually have some sympathy with those actually doing the work. Bad management and leadership always starts at the top. I suspect we have too much of both.
I agree. And I wouldn’t recommend the Civil Service but at that stage of my life I was happy to manage practical projects and ignore the politics with a small ‘p’. Delivery, though, is not their strong point.
I agree. And I wouldn’t recommend the Civil Service but at that stage of my life I was happy to manage practical projects and ignore the politics with a small ‘p’. Delivery, though, is not their strong point.
I wonder whether the problem with the civil service isn’t simply mediocrity.
I design & develop commodity trading systems for a living, but after Enron went bust I couldn’t find work in capital markets, so took a contract with Defra as a consultant to help them build a livestock tracking system, required after the foot and mouth scare at the turn of the century.
What I found was a real eye-opener – permanent staff seem to be promoted just on the basis of time served, rather than merit (my boss was a lovely bloke, but an idiot).
I had to get used to spinning out what would have been a day’s effort in the private sector into a week’s worth for Defra – I was actually taken aside by my manager and told not to work so hard as it made others look bad.
One developer who was just useless made a total mess of a subsystem he was charged with developing, only to be sent off on an expensive training course when it was clear to anybody with eyes that the guy was in the wrong job, and just didn’t have the ability to benefit from the training.
To cap it all, it was clear that the system we were working on was never going to fly. The system requirements documentation had been prepared by consultants on £2K per day (and had clearly been paid by the kilo of paper produced). It was only when looked at in detail that there were a multitude of either ambiguities, or straight-out contradictory requirements.
In short it, was the worst year of my professional career, and I will never work for the government again.
Interesting observations from the coal face, that nicely illustrate some of the key problem areas.
Interesting observations from the coal face, that nicely illustrate some of the key problem areas.
That’s encouraging news. I’ve had no direct experience with the Civil Service and have no plans to correct that.
I’m sure there’s plenty of fault to go round and it’s not all on one side.
I forget to state the obvious – a lack of clear government direction and policy doesn’t help matters. Nor does appointing ministers with no relevant experience or even interest and motivation in the departments they are assigned. Nor does changing ministers so frequently. So I wouldn’t be surprised if Civil Servants are left trying to second guess what their masters actually want and having to look over their shoulders to consider what the future minister might think of today’s initiative.
It’s not an environment I wish to work in and not one likely to produce great results.
As with the DVLA, I actually have some sympathy with those actually doing the work. Bad management and leadership always starts at the top. I suspect we have too much of both.
I wonder whether the problem with the civil service isn’t simply mediocrity.
I design & develop commodity trading systems for a living, but after Enron went bust I couldn’t find work in capital markets, so took a contract with Defra as a consultant to help them build a livestock tracking system, required after the foot and mouth scare at the turn of the century.
What I found was a real eye-opener – permanent staff seem to be promoted just on the basis of time served, rather than merit (my boss was a lovely bloke, but an idiot).
I had to get used to spinning out what would have been a day’s effort in the private sector into a week’s worth for Defra – I was actually taken aside by my manager and told not to work so hard as it made others look bad.
One developer who was just useless made a total mess of a subsystem he was charged with developing, only to be sent off on an expensive training course when it was clear to anybody with eyes that the guy was in the wrong job, and just didn’t have the ability to benefit from the training.
To cap it all, it was clear that the system we were working on was never going to fly. The system requirements documentation had been prepared by consultants on £2K per day (and had clearly been paid by the kilo of paper produced). It was only when looked at in detail that there were a multitude of either ambiguities, or straight-out contradictory requirements.
In short it, was the worst year of my professional career, and I will never work for the government again.
Most of my career was spent in the private sector, but the last 20 years or so I was a programme/project manager and took a job for the last few years before I retired working in the Cabinet Office. My experience was that the civil servants, both there and across Whitehall, who I worked with were fiercely ambitious and committed to delivering what the Minister wanted, whether it was a good idea or not, because that way their careers prospered. I saw absolutely no evidence of any kind of ideological pushback.
It’s also worth remembering that one of Johnson’s first acts was to sack his Cabinet Secretary to put in Simon Case, who he saw as more compliant, and Truss sacked Tom Scholar at the Treasury as soon as she began her brief, mad reign. There has been a fair amount of churn generally of top civil servants who didn’t please their political masters.
I think the idea of ‘the blob’ is just too convenient, a way to avoid responsibility or accountability when things go wrong. My own view, for what it’s worth, is that the civil service is actually too eager to please these days.
Well Murray what is your solution?
So far you have just castigated poor Cunliffe, only to give us yet another “salad of meaningless soundbites”.
I must have misunderstood the purpose of Unherd, and the ability to post, commenting on articles. I offered a critique of the article, which you can choose to agree with or not. I didn’t realise there was an expectation on me to submit a fully costed, coherent strategy with outcomes, deliverables, benefits, risks etc. whenever I do happen to post. But, if you look below at my comment on Singapore-on-Thames then you can see the things that help Singapore be successful, and adopting some of those might be a start.
I must have misunderstood the purpose of Unherd, and the ability to post, commenting on articles. I offered a critique of the article, which you can choose to agree with or not. I didn’t realise there was an expectation on me to submit a fully costed, coherent strategy with outcomes, deliverables, benefits, risks etc. whenever I do happen to post. But, if you look below at my comment on Singapore-on-Thames then you can see the things that help Singapore be successful, and adopting some of those might be a start.
Exactly. A lot of moaning, a lot of pretension, and Sweet Fanny Adams about what, in practical terms, he reckons ought to be actually DONE.
But that pie-in-the-sky moaning pretty much sums up most Brexiters.
However, the Civil Service of today is clearly not the same as that in Attlee or Thatcher’s day, so the comparison isn’t totally valid.
That said, I’m sure it does help if the Prime Minister commands the respect of the Civil Service in the first place and has sufficient authority. Some of our recent PMs are not without fault here.
But Civil Servants actively campaigning and working against government policies – and doing so in public as they are currently – would never have happened 30 years ago. It is not the job of Civil Servants to either make or interpret the law or act according to their supposed consciences. We have – and pay hansomely for – MPs and judges to do that and elections for those who want things to be done differently.
Well Murray what is your solution?
So far you have just castigated poor Cunliffe, only to give us yet another “salad of meaningless soundbites”.
Exactly. A lot of moaning, a lot of pretension, and Sweet Fanny Adams about what, in practical terms, he reckons ought to be actually DONE.
But that pie-in-the-sky moaning pretty much sums up most Brexiters.
I hate articles like this. It says that everyone else got it wrong, but the author has the magic bullet, the solution, but doesn’t say what it is, just gives us a word salad of meaningless soundbites.
The general consensus, according to myriad polls, is that Brexit has failed, largely because it has. It was sold to the electorate with both ‘take back control’ and economic components, the former that we could make laws that suited us better and have our own immigration policy, also tailored to meet our needs (hence even Nigel Farage talked about the Australian style points system, which we’ve effectively ended up with), while economically the EU somehow would not negotiate in their own self-interest (Negotiation Rule 101) but give us a deal with all of the benefits and none of the obligations, the rest of the world would magically follow suit, the economy would be turbocharged, there would be loads more money for public services, high wages and high skills would be the order of the day, and we’d live happily ever after. Good enough pitch to win the referendum, but always a fantasy.
So what now? The author dismisses trade agreements, without even attempting to explain how we make the things the public want to consume, or grow the food the public wants to eat ourselves. He talks about investing in ‘National Renewal’ but not how to grow the economy to pay for it, or whether National Renewal needs to take notice of the various independence movements.
At the moment, the Brexit Elite, the politicians and their media allies, veer between pretending that it’s all going great or taking comfort in the ‘stab in the back myth’, that it would have been great if it wasn’t for their all powerful shadowy enemies.
Anyone else ever wonder how Margaret Thatcher and Clement Attlee both managed to work with the civil servants of their day and deliver transformational change, from totally opposite ends of the political spectrum, with no mention of ‘The Blob’, while Liz Truss, say, claims that her downfall was not caused by her being a clueless ideologue, with no clue of real world economics, but by the evil Blob?
No, probably not.
There is a difference between Mrs Thatcher being “the architect of the Single Market” which she wasn’t, and her campaigning for “globalist free-trade” which she did. One was to give the benefits of efficient markets to everybody, and the other to create a closed trading bloc. They are not reconcilable, as Mrs T well knew.
I think it’s wise being open to trade, at least it’s the lesser of two evils. The trouble is, and no-one has figured out how to fix this, is that there are serious casualties on the road
I think it’s wise being open to trade, at least it’s the lesser of two evils. The trouble is, and no-one has figured out how to fix this, is that there are serious casualties on the road
There is a difference between Mrs Thatcher being “the architect of the Single Market” which she wasn’t, and her campaigning for “globalist free-trade” which she did. One was to give the benefits of efficient markets to everybody, and the other to create a closed trading bloc. They are not reconcilable, as Mrs T well knew.
There seems to have been a change. Perhaps more of proportion than character but through my rose tinted specs, I have an imagine of parties going into elections saying “this is what we want to do” and voters either sharing those ideas or not.
It seems that today, they ask the press what it thinks people want and offers a plan to voters accordingly.
Even if the Singapore on Thames idea was unwise (I’m not sure that it was unwise), at least one party should offer us that and the other offer something different.
Even if Liz Truss was daft (not as much as painted), she should have had a chance. Instead, the same people pushing the same ideas have brought us to the same position.
Let’s have a choice between capitalists and socialists
On the point about crafting policy at election time, I have to say, I find this one of the most risible aspects of the whole farrago…
We are one of the few countries in the world that put the name on the tin, so to speak. It’s really effing obvious what each party is supposed to be doing, and if you get confused turn around and look at the banner you are standing in front of FFS!
The job of the Labour Party is to put forth policies that help the working classes, you know, the labour. The job of the Conservative Party is to conserve as much as possible of what already works, as the nation changes with time. That’s it. It is really that simple. The two have clear jobs, and if they just bl**dy do them then the system works, and an antagonistic balance constantly resettles itself over time, keeping power in check, and balancing progress with probity.
Yet every election cycle these parties spend a fortune on opinion polling, and focus groups, trying to work out who their voter base should be and what catchy slogans they can use to ensnare their votes. Absolutely infuriating. LOOK BEHIND YOU! You’re standing in front of the answer to this riddle you muppets!
Apologies for the rant, but really it’s just extra-risible because in Britain we have made this so clear and they still don’t get it. And they’re tearing the nation apart by casting around for random constituencies (and going after the same niche ones), when the system cannot work under those conditions. It’s imperative to adversarial government that each party represent a large swathe of voters, and does not massively overlap in it’s proposed agendas (otherwise there is no opposition; no functioning check on power, no whetstone to sharpen dull legislation / ideas).
You’ve reminded me of the Cola wars of the 1980’s – Coke panicked because consumer tests reliably showed a preference for Pepsi – they brought out ‘New Coke’, an epic failure. It turns out that people only preferred pepsi in the first sips, because it was sweeter, it gave them what they wanted immediately, viscerally – but not what they wanted over-time, which was good old ‘Classic Coke’. The first great failure of consumer-group led research is apparently not understood by the Parties.
Interesting anecdote, thanks Dominic, I didn’t know that.
Interesting anecdote, thanks Dominic, I didn’t know that.
You’ve reminded me of the Cola wars of the 1980’s – Coke panicked because consumer tests reliably showed a preference for Pepsi – they brought out ‘New Coke’, an epic failure. It turns out that people only preferred pepsi in the first sips, because it was sweeter, it gave them what they wanted immediately, viscerally – but not what they wanted over-time, which was good old ‘Classic Coke’. The first great failure of consumer-group led research is apparently not understood by the Parties.
On the point about crafting policy at election time, I have to say, I find this one of the most risible aspects of the whole farrago…
We are one of the few countries in the world that put the name on the tin, so to speak. It’s really effing obvious what each party is supposed to be doing, and if you get confused turn around and look at the banner you are standing in front of FFS!
The job of the Labour Party is to put forth policies that help the working classes, you know, the labour. The job of the Conservative Party is to conserve as much as possible of what already works, as the nation changes with time. That’s it. It is really that simple. The two have clear jobs, and if they just bl**dy do them then the system works, and an antagonistic balance constantly resettles itself over time, keeping power in check, and balancing progress with probity.
Yet every election cycle these parties spend a fortune on opinion polling, and focus groups, trying to work out who their voter base should be and what catchy slogans they can use to ensnare their votes. Absolutely infuriating. LOOK BEHIND YOU! You’re standing in front of the answer to this riddle you muppets!
Apologies for the rant, but really it’s just extra-risible because in Britain we have made this so clear and they still don’t get it. And they’re tearing the nation apart by casting around for random constituencies (and going after the same niche ones), when the system cannot work under those conditions. It’s imperative to adversarial government that each party represent a large swathe of voters, and does not massively overlap in it’s proposed agendas (otherwise there is no opposition; no functioning check on power, no whetstone to sharpen dull legislation / ideas).
There seems to have been a change. Perhaps more of proportion than character but through my rose tinted specs, I have an imagine of parties going into elections saying “this is what we want to do” and voters either sharing those ideas or not.
It seems that today, they ask the press what it thinks people want and offers a plan to voters accordingly.
Even if the Singapore on Thames idea was unwise (I’m not sure that it was unwise), at least one party should offer us that and the other offer something different.
Even if Liz Truss was daft (not as much as painted), she should have had a chance. Instead, the same people pushing the same ideas have brought us to the same position.
Let’s have a choice between capitalists and socialists
It is perhaps no surprise that the opportunities presented by Brexit are not being seized by our political class; they are, afterall, professional and managerial-types whose default is risk management and risk mitigation. The country is badly screaming out for genuine leadership, innovators and entrepreneurs. Alas, our current political system does not encourage these types to come forward.
Ultimately we never really committed to membership, preferring to opt out of major tenets such as the Euro and Schengen, and now we won’t really look to take full advantage of the global opportunities available. Basically our Brexit future will most likely mirror our EU membership: never really in but never really out (save for some political revolution in this country).
PS) I also don’t agree that a large single market requires a supranational state to administer it. It perhaps need some form of small yet nimble arbitrator with teeth, but not a bank, a currency, law courts, a presidency, a bureaucracy and an army!
It is perhaps no surprise that the opportunities presented by Brexit are not being seized by our political class; they are, afterall, professional and managerial-types whose default is risk management and risk mitigation. The country is badly screaming out for genuine leadership, innovators and entrepreneurs. Alas, our current political system does not encourage these types to come forward.
Ultimately we never really committed to membership, preferring to opt out of major tenets such as the Euro and Schengen, and now we won’t really look to take full advantage of the global opportunities available. Basically our Brexit future will most likely mirror our EU membership: never really in but never really out (save for some political revolution in this country).
PS) I also don’t agree that a large single market requires a supranational state to administer it. It perhaps need some form of small yet nimble arbitrator with teeth, but not a bank, a currency, law courts, a presidency, a bureaucracy and an army!
Not “squandered”. “Frustrated”. That was the plan all along. It could never have been allowed to succeed.
Not “squandered”. “Frustrated”. That was the plan all along. It could never have been allowed to succeed.
I’ve come to the sad conclusion that Brexit will never be enacted in any meaningful sense simply because none of the people who wield real power in this country want it to happen; even if they don’t consciously realise they’re being obstructive, their instincts are agin it. It’s all exactly like Yes Minister.
And what would enacting mean AY? Give us a few policies, how they’d be funded etc.
I fear you just another Vote leave supporter who somehow thought nirvana would just then happen and had done zilch real thinking and prep about what to then do with Brexit. No slogans please, real considered policies with our new freedoms?
It’s not about policy, it is about governing our country ourselves and NOT being governed by a bunch of unelected foreign crooks.
It’s not about policy, it is about governing our country ourselves and NOT being governed by a bunch of unelected foreign crooks.
And what would enacting mean AY? Give us a few policies, how they’d be funded etc.
I fear you just another Vote leave supporter who somehow thought nirvana would just then happen and had done zilch real thinking and prep about what to then do with Brexit. No slogans please, real considered policies with our new freedoms?
I’ve come to the sad conclusion that Brexit will never be enacted in any meaningful sense simply because none of the people who wield real power in this country want it to happen; even if they don’t consciously realise they’re being obstructive, their instincts are agin it. It’s all exactly like Yes Minister.
I don’t care who does it. But we must do something in our can’t do state. We all know what needs to be done – energy, transport, utilities, health services- but nothing happens. It takes ten years to get permission for a new wind farm but then the grid has not the capacity to accept the power. It has taken years to get HS2 agreed and not built. The terrible inertia built into the system needs to be beaten into action. It will need a revolution to start root and branch reform of our whole lazy complacent system of governance. Perhaps not a la lanterne but something close to it.
I don’t care who does it. But we must do something in our can’t do state. We all know what needs to be done – energy, transport, utilities, health services- but nothing happens. It takes ten years to get permission for a new wind farm but then the grid has not the capacity to accept the power. It has taken years to get HS2 agreed and not built. The terrible inertia built into the system needs to be beaten into action. It will need a revolution to start root and branch reform of our whole lazy complacent system of governance. Perhaps not a la lanterne but something close to it.
I’ve read the article, and scanned the 54 comments preceding this one.
I’m not sure that *anyone* uses the words “Conservative government,” let alone suggests that its general crapness might have something to do with the Brexit mess (though Charles Stanhope does mention one D. Cummings).
I’ve read the article, and scanned the 54 comments preceding this one.
I’m not sure that *anyone* uses the words “Conservative government,” let alone suggests that its general crapness might have something to do with the Brexit mess (though Charles Stanhope does mention one D. Cummings).
Other than high level waffle, this article is devoid of substance about the future. What are the new structures that the author believes to be required? What will they be intended to do to renew Britain, whatever that means?
Other than high level waffle, this article is devoid of substance about the future. What are the new structures that the author believes to be required? What will they be intended to do to renew Britain, whatever that means?
As a conservative American, I want every citizen of Great Britain to know that we pray for you continued sovereign reign and your beneficial influence on human progress.
Pay no attention to your detractors. History is not a person and only the foolish judge it so. Throughout the arc of human progress, WE have led the world. Haltingly, albeit, but we led nonetheless.
Have courage my sisters and brothers in the lived expression human freedom. If we have courage, if we are resolved, no force on earth can stop us!
Who is the coward that marked this post down ?
Who is the coward that marked this post down ?
As a conservative American, I want every citizen of Great Britain to know that we pray for you continued sovereign reign and your beneficial influence on human progress.
Pay no attention to your detractors. History is not a person and only the foolish judge it so. Throughout the arc of human progress, WE have led the world. Haltingly, albeit, but we led nonetheless.
Have courage my sisters and brothers in the lived expression human freedom. If we have courage, if we are resolved, no force on earth can stop us!
Another obvious indication that democracy is dying.
Another obvious indication that democracy is dying.
Dolchstoss Legende.
Dolchstoss Legende.
In my working life I spent/wasted/squandered time being involved in change in organisations. There are three golden rules that must be followed if a significant system change is to be successful:
1. there needs to be a clear vision of what you are trying to achieve, one that you can show has worked when it is implemented. 2. Implementation needs to be incremental, there can be big-bang aspects, often there has to be, but a single big bang will fail because it’s too big to manage. 3. If a prototype shows not to be working, change it.
None of these natural rules was followed with Brexit so it was doomed to fail. Doesn’t matter how valuable it is or isn’t, it was doomed from the off.
The vision, too, cannot be just to throw out the old system and a new one will emerge, or even worse throw out the old and we can revert to one that preceded it. That’s not a vision.
So if I’m right on this, which of course I am, what is the committed Brexiter to do to salvage the situation? Tinkering with electoral reform isn’t going to do it, for that isn’t a vision that relates to the topic in hand.
I would like to see/hear/know quite what those who promote the concept of sovereignty mean by that. Does it mean becoming an isolated state like North Korea? Does it mean participating in no allegiances either political or commercial? What exactly does it mean?
Until that particular vision can be elucidated, I think that further delusion and disappointment is going to be the lot of many, presumably including the writer of this article.
Agree with most of what you say here.
I think we risk forgetting the simple fact that in 2016 all we were asked to do was express our preference for staying in the EU or leaving. There was no requirement to propose any subsequent course of action.
If you remember, it was David Cameron who explicitly promised to deliver whatever we chose. It was his responsbility and his alone (and his government’s) for what came next.
And then Cameron ran away.
Remember also that people like David Cameron refused to work with leave campaigners like Nigel Farage.
The manager responsible for this project was Cameron. I agree he had no coherent plan for the Leave outcome.
So surely, there’s at least one thing all sides should be able to agree on – Cameron’s overwhelming share of any blame going.
Agree to a point PB. V difficult really for Cameron/Osborne to have used the EU as a ‘blame-shield’ for years and then switch tack and say essential we remained.
But the overwhelming share of blame has to go to those who promulgated Leave for years, before and during the campaign, without giving sufficient thought to what would then need to happen if they won. Including how they’d square some of the deceptions and lack of honesty on choices to then be made. As Farage/Hannan said during campaign, they expected to remain part of Single Market and EU to cave in to demands from German car makers etc. They never properly engaged with less optimistic scenarios, and they certainly never gave NI a moment’s thought.
I think EU not without some blame too. They could have bent a little more on Cameron’s request for a break period on free movement. Albeit as we’ve seen our immigration only increased subsequently, and furthermore EU was correct that we were choosing to not deploy some of the additional measures allowed within free movement articles. Cameron was playing politics.
Agree to a point PB. V difficult really for Cameron/Osborne to have used the EU as a ‘blame-shield’ for years and then switch tack and say essential we remained.
But the overwhelming share of blame has to go to those who promulgated Leave for years, before and during the campaign, without giving sufficient thought to what would then need to happen if they won. Including how they’d square some of the deceptions and lack of honesty on choices to then be made. As Farage/Hannan said during campaign, they expected to remain part of Single Market and EU to cave in to demands from German car makers etc. They never properly engaged with less optimistic scenarios, and they certainly never gave NI a moment’s thought.
I think EU not without some blame too. They could have bent a little more on Cameron’s request for a break period on free movement. Albeit as we’ve seen our immigration only increased subsequently, and furthermore EU was correct that we were choosing to not deploy some of the additional measures allowed within free movement articles. Cameron was playing politics.
Agree with most of what you say here.
I think we risk forgetting the simple fact that in 2016 all we were asked to do was express our preference for staying in the EU or leaving. There was no requirement to propose any subsequent course of action.
If you remember, it was David Cameron who explicitly promised to deliver whatever we chose. It was his responsbility and his alone (and his government’s) for what came next.
And then Cameron ran away.
Remember also that people like David Cameron refused to work with leave campaigners like Nigel Farage.
The manager responsible for this project was Cameron. I agree he had no coherent plan for the Leave outcome.
So surely, there’s at least one thing all sides should be able to agree on – Cameron’s overwhelming share of any blame going.
In my working life I spent/wasted/squandered time being involved in change in organisations. There are three golden rules that must be followed if a significant system change is to be successful:
1. there needs to be a clear vision of what you are trying to achieve, one that you can show has worked when it is implemented. 2. Implementation needs to be incremental, there can be big-bang aspects, often there has to be, but a single big bang will fail because it’s too big to manage. 3. If a prototype shows not to be working, change it.
None of these natural rules was followed with Brexit so it was doomed to fail. Doesn’t matter how valuable it is or isn’t, it was doomed from the off.
The vision, too, cannot be just to throw out the old system and a new one will emerge, or even worse throw out the old and we can revert to one that preceded it. That’s not a vision.
So if I’m right on this, which of course I am, what is the committed Brexiter to do to salvage the situation? Tinkering with electoral reform isn’t going to do it, for that isn’t a vision that relates to the topic in hand.
I would like to see/hear/know quite what those who promote the concept of sovereignty mean by that. Does it mean becoming an isolated state like North Korea? Does it mean participating in no allegiances either political or commercial? What exactly does it mean?
Until that particular vision can be elucidated, I think that further delusion and disappointment is going to be the lot of many, presumably including the writer of this article.
As a conservative American citizen, I wish every citizen of Greater Britain to know I pray for you continued influence over your sov
As a conservative American citizen, I wish every citizen of Greater Britain to know I pray for you continued influence over your sov
Brexiteers are now predictably resembling those socialists who when asked why no socialist govt had ever worked would reply ‘because real socialism had never been done’.
Lets be clear in 2019 the Brexit Tory party got rid of most of its remainer MPs and then won a large majority and since then has had a govt of hardline Brexit ministers many in the Cabinet trying their best to make Brexit work.
Like Socialism Brexit was only ever workable if a sizeable section of the population were willing to take a lot of pain for a clear long term endgame which millions were never likely to agree to and as such in a democracy the opposition were always likely gets voted in as a result and dismantle the long term roadmap.
As with Net Zero too many leading Brexiteers are very wealthy people playing games with ordinary peoples lives.
Just explain how being a member of the EU was ever advantageous to Britain or the British people. Otherwise keep quiet.
Are you really asking what the advantages of being in the EU were? It obviously had advantages – freedom of movement for UK citizens to work, study and (for musicians) tour abroad, it gave businesses access to the single market (the denial to which is now forcing some businesses to close or uproot). Sure there will be some benefits to Brexit (wage rises for some workers, some control over our lawmaking – although any positive laws we are yet to see from this government). Anyway, surely you must know all that.
Are you really asking what the advantages of being in the EU were? It obviously had advantages – freedom of movement for UK citizens to work, study and (for musicians) tour abroad, it gave businesses access to the single market (the denial to which is now forcing some businesses to close or uproot). Sure there will be some benefits to Brexit (wage rises for some workers, some control over our lawmaking – although any positive laws we are yet to see from this government). Anyway, surely you must know all that.
Spot on Mr.Wolf
Just explain how being a member of the EU was ever advantageous to Britain or the British people. Otherwise keep quiet.
Spot on Mr.Wolf
Brexiteers are now predictably resembling those socialists who when asked why no socialist govt had ever worked would reply ‘because real socialism had never been done’.
Lets be clear in 2019 the Brexit Tory party got rid of most of its remainer MPs and then won a large majority and since then has had a govt of hardline Brexit ministers many in the Cabinet trying their best to make Brexit work.
Like Socialism Brexit was only ever workable if a sizeable section of the population were willing to take a lot of pain for a clear long term endgame which millions were never likely to agree to and as such in a democracy the opposition were always likely gets voted in as a result and dismantle the long term roadmap.
As with Net Zero too many leading Brexiteers are very wealthy people playing games with ordinary peoples lives.
Why is populism such a dirty word?. It just means the government of a supposed democracy listening to the voters instructions and acting accordingly. That’s bad apparently. https://open.substack.com/pub/lowstatus/p/in-praise-of-populism?r=evzeq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Another daydreamer.
“All this begs the question: why have the opportunities of Brexit been squandered?”
All of that begs a fundamental – and as yet unanswered question – what on earth are these “opportunities” that you lot keep banging on about?
Do any of you have any practical suggestions? Brexiters have had 7 years to come up with something, anything.
It’s extraordinary that we’re still waiting for an adult set of proposals to flesh out all the populist sloganeering.
We’re still in the dark as to what these mighty missed opportunities might be.
We’ve had an overdose of lazy, grandiose rhetoric.
Instead of the purist hot air, could you please list out the top 10 practical steps you want to see carried out.
Otherwise, you’re just another tub-thumping malcontent, long on rhetoric, but with diddley-squat in your locker as far as an actual set of workable policies are concerned.
Response:
Grrr gnash etc lol
But not a policy in sight.
BREXIT was sabotaged by the establishment.
So many politicians have been bought off.
You know this.
As a foreigner I’ll not weigh in on Brexit and related matters, but I wonder if any of the adamant leavers here will deign to provide the top 10–or top 5, to be less demanding–that you’ve requested.
No, we won’t.
Why should we ?
We don’t have to justify our opinions.
Of course you don’t have to, nor Frank McCusker his. The question is, can you? It’s obviously more of a fair challenge than a binding demand.
I campaigned to leave the EEC in 1975 because I knew way back then that we would be dragged further and further into the Euro superstate and I was not wrong. Having been anti EEC/EC/EU for all those years I couldn’t believe we actually had the referendum and voted to leave. So when I hear ignorant remainers telling me I didn’t know what I voted for and I only voted to Leave because Boris Johnson told me to, I hope you understand that I get a tad p***ed off.
I really don’t want to make the case for being out of the EU because I been doing that for most of my adult life, almost 50 years.
So it’s not a matter of can I provide reasons, more why should I ?
We were promised the result of the referendum would honoured and the referendum was NOT advisory as some will say.
Thanks for your interest, as a foreigner in BREXIT and I’m not being sarcastic, but you are a late arrival to this party or should I say s***show.
I hope that makes it all a little more clear.
More government is always a bad thing
we never needed to be part of the European project in the first place.
NT
Ok thanks. I respect that reply. I’m also surprised you were even alive in ’75 as your choppy and combative style of typing made me think you were about 32. So much for assumptions, right? I turned 52 today. Cheers.
Happy birthday and best wishes.
I’m twice that age + 2years.
I’ve had the arguments against the EU and I’ve had the aguments against the climate change alarmists over and over again.
I admit as I get older, I get a little intolerant of those who deliberately ingnore the fundamentals.
I mean the remainers will demand why Leavers want to leave and what policies do we want when that is not the issue.
The issue is simple, who governs us ?
It cannot be an unelected cabal of self-interested bureaucrats and failed politicians.
The only acceptable government is a sovereign government with elected and accountable representatives to whom the people lend their sovereign power on a temporary basis.
In the UK it is the people who are sovereign, not parliament and certainly not an outside body, such as the EU, the UN, the WHO and the WEF.
I appreciate your reply. Thanks.
Thank you, sir. Best wishes to you too.
Thank you, sir. Best wishes to you too.
Happy birthday and best wishes.
I’m twice that age + 2years.
I’ve had the arguments against the EU and I’ve had the aguments against the climate change alarmists over and over again.
I admit as I get older, I get a little intolerant of those who deliberately ingnore the fundamentals.
I mean the remainers will demand why Leavers want to leave and what policies do we want when that is not the issue.
The issue is simple, who governs us ?
It cannot be an unelected cabal of self-interested bureaucrats and failed politicians.
The only acceptable government is a sovereign government with elected and accountable representatives to whom the people lend their sovereign power on a temporary basis.
In the UK it is the people who are sovereign, not parliament and certainly not an outside body, such as the EU, the UN, the WHO and the WEF.
I appreciate your reply. Thanks.
Ok thanks. I respect that reply. I’m also surprised you were even alive in ’75 as your choppy and combative style of typing made me think you were about 32. So much for assumptions, right? I turned 52 today. Cheers.
I campaigned to leave the EEC in 1975 because I knew way back then that we would be dragged further and further into the Euro superstate and I was not wrong. Having been anti EEC/EC/EU for all those years I couldn’t believe we actually had the referendum and voted to leave. So when I hear ignorant remainers telling me I didn’t know what I voted for and I only voted to Leave because Boris Johnson told me to, I hope you understand that I get a tad p***ed off.
I really don’t want to make the case for being out of the EU because I been doing that for most of my adult life, almost 50 years.
So it’s not a matter of can I provide reasons, more why should I ?
We were promised the result of the referendum would honoured and the referendum was NOT advisory as some will say.
Thanks for your interest, as a foreigner in BREXIT and I’m not being sarcastic, but you are a late arrival to this party or should I say s***show.
I hope that makes it all a little more clear.
More government is always a bad thing
we never needed to be part of the European project in the first place.
NT
Screams out you never can SD. Comical.
Yes we can, but you don’t want to listen.
You are just using Alinskyite tactics because you are deeply dishonest.
You cannot give even one good reason why the UK should have remained in the EU.
And you won’t answer.
No, it does not.
Yes we can, but you don’t want to listen.
You are just using Alinskyite tactics because you are deeply dishonest.
You cannot give even one good reason why the UK should have remained in the EU.
And you won’t answer.
No, it does not.
Of course you don’t have to, nor Frank McCusker his. The question is, can you? It’s obviously more of a fair challenge than a binding demand.
Screams out you never can SD. Comical.
No, we won’t.
Why should we ?
We don’t have to justify our opinions.
They largely can’t answer FM. They never gave it enough thought, and when/if they did they chose to be dishonest about the choices. What’s happened inevitable, including the search for some scapegoat(s).
jw
Don’t be smug when you are so desperately ill-informed.
I wrote above that I had been campaigning to leave the EU for nearly 50 years.
When are know-nothings like you ever going to tell us why YOU think the UK should have stayed shackled to the rotting corpse that is the EU ?
The EU has no mandate and no role to play in this world. It is a parasitic organiation that exists to support a bunch of employable crooks. It becomes less and less relevant every day.
Name one good reason that the EU could have been a benefit to the UK or any other nation.
That won’t happen because you are utterly clueless and thoroughly disingenuous and dishonest.
jw
You can’t answer why we should have remained, and you won’t because you have no idea what you are talking about.
jw
Don’t be smug when you are so desperately ill-informed.
I wrote above that I had been campaigning to leave the EU for nearly 50 years.
When are know-nothings like you ever going to tell us why YOU think the UK should have stayed shackled to the rotting corpse that is the EU ?
The EU has no mandate and no role to play in this world. It is a parasitic organiation that exists to support a bunch of employable crooks. It becomes less and less relevant every day.
Name one good reason that the EU could have been a benefit to the UK or any other nation.
That won’t happen because you are utterly clueless and thoroughly disingenuous and dishonest.
jw
You can’t answer why we should have remained, and you won’t because you have no idea what you are talking about.
Well what would anyone expect from a Marxist like you ? Constant and unrelenting lies.
BREXIT was sabotaged by the establishment.
So many politicians have been bought off.
You know this.
As a foreigner I’ll not weigh in on Brexit and related matters, but I wonder if any of the adamant leavers here will deign to provide the top 10–or top 5, to be less demanding–that you’ve requested.
They largely can’t answer FM. They never gave it enough thought, and when/if they did they chose to be dishonest about the choices. What’s happened inevitable, including the search for some scapegoat(s).
Well what would anyone expect from a Marxist like you ? Constant and unrelenting lies.
Another daydreamer.
“All this begs the question: why have the opportunities of Brexit been squandered?”
All of that begs a fundamental – and as yet unanswered question – what on earth are these “opportunities” that you lot keep banging on about?
Do any of you have any practical suggestions? Brexiters have had 7 years to come up with something, anything.
It’s extraordinary that we’re still waiting for an adult set of proposals to flesh out all the populist sloganeering.
We’re still in the dark as to what these mighty missed opportunities might be.
We’ve had an overdose of lazy, grandiose rhetoric.
Instead of the purist hot air, could you please list out the top 10 practical steps you want to see carried out.
Otherwise, you’re just another tub-thumping malcontent, long on rhetoric, but with diddley-squat in your locker as far as an actual set of workable policies are concerned.
Response:
Grrr gnash etc lol
But not a policy in sight.
In other words, Brexit has been a huge and failed distraction from the real challenge of national renewal, and in itself belongs in the list of other failures to renew the nation. The best that can be said of it is that it removed the distraction of internationalism to a renewed sense of nationhood.
Only because the establishment didn’t want BREXIT.
Only because the establishment didn’t want BREXIT.
In other words, Brexit has been a huge and failed distraction from the real challenge of national renewal, and in itself belongs in the list of other failures to renew the nation. The best that can be said of it is that it removed the distraction of internationalism to a renewed sense of nationhood.
I’d be happy if we didn’t any longer have to stand in the ‘All other passports’ line. Makes me feel like an exile.
I’d be happy if we didn’t any longer have to stand in the ‘All other passports’ line. Makes me feel like an exile.
The writer is living in fairyland. Brexit offered no opportunities whatsoever.
The writer is living in fairyland. Brexit offered no opportunities whatsoever.
Fair on diagnosis but a bit vacuous on prognosis and detail of proposed route out of this sense of debility.
Dead right of course on the criticism of the Singapore-on-Thames brigade. Infantile in it’s transferability appreciation, but worse they also deceived and lied about this as their motivation and secret direction. They knew it’s not something those who voted Leave would have wanted. And herein lies one of the biggest frauds behind many exponents of Vote leave. The deception was always likely to unravel and so it’s proven.
Of course Author is correct we are not going back in anytime soon. That ship has sailed for a generation at least. But dynamic alignment and gradual creep to a Norway/Swiss type model highly likely – ironically without anything like the influence we had over EU direction. What plonkers we have been and future generations will read that in the history books.
Sort of agree, but we shouldn’t sniff our noses at Singapore, Norway or Switzerland which are – compared to Britain – functioning stable states. I don’t mind a peripheral alignment with the EU. I expect most Brexit voters aren’t that bothered. What they want is for British politicians to serve the interests of British voters. Fixing the potholes would be a start. Then decent public services, an infrastructure that works, proper borders and an emphasis on training and jobs for all – simple.
There is no such thing as the “Swiss” model. The Swiss do have a number of bilateral arrangements with the EU, but it’s an arrangement that is on the way out and won’t be replicated. What the bilateral arrangement will be replaced with is still uncertain as negotiations for the the planned framework agreement have broken down and the project is still hovering around in purgatory.
Therefore, saying “Britain will end up with a Swiss-style model” is, at this point, utter pish.
Disagree KE, although to be fair I could have been clearer what I meant by Swiss model – a series of bilateral agreements. You are correct EU not greatly in favour of this approach but suspect they’d be pragmatic. I do think this is the way we are heading and the TCA is already a form of this.
Disagree KE, although to be fair I could have been clearer what I meant by Swiss model – a series of bilateral agreements. You are correct EU not greatly in favour of this approach but suspect they’d be pragmatic. I do think this is the way we are heading and the TCA is already a form of this.
“What plonkers we have been and future generations will read that in the history books”.
We did far, far worse in August 1914 under that ‘plonker’/ pervert Herbert Asquith.
For once, I have to agree. Apart from Squiffy, see Churchill’s remarks on ‘the Second Eleven’ in his history of the Second World War.
WSC was one of the worst of ‘Squiffy’s ‘ cabinet, a typically belligerent beast it must be said.
WSC was one of the worst of ‘Squiffy’s ‘ cabinet, a typically belligerent beast it must be said.
For once, I have to agree. Apart from Squiffy, see Churchill’s remarks on ‘the Second Eleven’ in his history of the Second World War.
The Singapore-on-Thames appeal to the Tories seemed to be entirely driven by the low tax aspect, rather than the other factors that actually make Singapore attractive. The government controlled housing sector, which means 90% of the population owns their own home, at an affordable price. Immigration, an essentially open door policy to bring in the workers they need. A vibrant manufacturing sector. An export led economy. An education system that develops a highly skilled workforce. An industrial strategy. All essential infrastructure owned by the government. All things the Tories don’t have or seem to want.
Plus strict controls on immigration and no nonsence policing. A Singapore Party would do quite well here. Maybe before we try to rejoin and get Brussels to run us, we should offer Singapore a go – if they would have us?
And Capital Punishment, and other somewhat draconian legislation regarding long hair and spitting on the street as I recall.
All in all a bit of a post Imperial paradise.
Agree JM. To add – v difficult to apply what works for a 5m City-state to the complexity and history of the UK. I suspect the Brexiteers swept up by this had, ironically, much too much of SE England/London bias.
Great points. Though as CS says, it is also a dictatorship (though that might be a point in its favour as far as the Tories are concenerd). You probably heard the Quinn Slobodian interview for Unherd discussing this. He also gave a similar one for politics Joe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KXo5Pe0XpE&t=601s
Plus strict controls on immigration and no nonsence policing. A Singapore Party would do quite well here. Maybe before we try to rejoin and get Brussels to run us, we should offer Singapore a go – if they would have us?
And Capital Punishment, and other somewhat draconian legislation regarding long hair and spitting on the street as I recall.
All in all a bit of a post Imperial paradise.
Agree JM. To add – v difficult to apply what works for a 5m City-state to the complexity and history of the UK. I suspect the Brexiteers swept up by this had, ironically, much too much of SE England/London bias.
Great points. Though as CS says, it is also a dictatorship (though that might be a point in its favour as far as the Tories are concenerd). You probably heard the Quinn Slobodian interview for Unherd discussing this. He also gave a similar one for politics Joe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KXo5Pe0XpE&t=601s
Sort of agree, but we shouldn’t sniff our noses at Singapore, Norway or Switzerland which are – compared to Britain – functioning stable states. I don’t mind a peripheral alignment with the EU. I expect most Brexit voters aren’t that bothered. What they want is for British politicians to serve the interests of British voters. Fixing the potholes would be a start. Then decent public services, an infrastructure that works, proper borders and an emphasis on training and jobs for all – simple.
There is no such thing as the “Swiss” model. The Swiss do have a number of bilateral arrangements with the EU, but it’s an arrangement that is on the way out and won’t be replicated. What the bilateral arrangement will be replaced with is still uncertain as negotiations for the the planned framework agreement have broken down and the project is still hovering around in purgatory.
Therefore, saying “Britain will end up with a Swiss-style model” is, at this point, utter pish.
“What plonkers we have been and future generations will read that in the history books”.
We did far, far worse in August 1914 under that ‘plonker’/ pervert Herbert Asquith.
The Singapore-on-Thames appeal to the Tories seemed to be entirely driven by the low tax aspect, rather than the other factors that actually make Singapore attractive. The government controlled housing sector, which means 90% of the population owns their own home, at an affordable price. Immigration, an essentially open door policy to bring in the workers they need. A vibrant manufacturing sector. An export led economy. An education system that develops a highly skilled workforce. An industrial strategy. All essential infrastructure owned by the government. All things the Tories don’t have or seem to want.
Fair on diagnosis but a bit vacuous on prognosis and detail of proposed route out of this sense of debility.
Dead right of course on the criticism of the Singapore-on-Thames brigade. Infantile in it’s transferability appreciation, but worse they also deceived and lied about this as their motivation and secret direction. They knew it’s not something those who voted Leave would have wanted. And herein lies one of the biggest frauds behind many exponents of Vote leave. The deception was always likely to unravel and so it’s proven.
Of course Author is correct we are not going back in anytime soon. That ship has sailed for a generation at least. But dynamic alignment and gradual creep to a Norway/Swiss type model highly likely – ironically without anything like the influence we had over EU direction. What plonkers we have been and future generations will read that in the history books.
This is an impressive big lie approach to politics: “To blame this all on Brexit, however, would be to adopt the same imperialistic and conceited attitude of many Remainers, “. Impressive and daring! It was obviously the deluded nostalgia for an imperial past that motivated Brexiteers. An empire of theft and exploitation that cannot be recreated by the rump that is left. That is the true conceit.
Deluded remainers imagine deluded nostalgics yearning for their imperial past. I doubt the thought occurred to more than two or three people, and most people who thought about the subject prefer the pre-imperial model which worked quite well for a thousand years. The nostalgic imperialists are as much on the other side, imagining a restoration of the Napoleonic empire or even better, the Holy Roman Empire.
Arguably the EU functions as a New Hanseatic League, a trade empire, rather than a political empire.
Arguably the EU functions as a New Hanseatic League, a trade empire, rather than a political empire.
Edited
Another fool who thinks that there’s one single reason that people voted to leave the EU.
They never learn. Because they’ve never listened. Sounds like they never will.
Deluded remainers imagine deluded nostalgics yearning for their imperial past. I doubt the thought occurred to more than two or three people, and most people who thought about the subject prefer the pre-imperial model which worked quite well for a thousand years. The nostalgic imperialists are as much on the other side, imagining a restoration of the Napoleonic empire or even better, the Holy Roman Empire.
Edited
Another fool who thinks that there’s one single reason that people voted to leave the EU.
They never learn. Because they’ve never listened. Sounds like they never will.
This is an impressive big lie approach to politics: “To blame this all on Brexit, however, would be to adopt the same imperialistic and conceited attitude of many Remainers, “. Impressive and daring! It was obviously the deluded nostalgia for an imperial past that motivated Brexiteers. An empire of theft and exploitation that cannot be recreated by the rump that is left. That is the true conceit.