recentpopularlog in

petej : uk   15392

« earlier  
Brexit: Will it be a Canadian or an Australian ending? - BBC News
Let's be clear about one thing. There is no Australian free trade deal with the EU. Negotiations started on one last year, and at the moment the two sides trade under a decade old much looser partnership while trying to thrash through issues from fuel emissions to what producers on opposite sides of the world should be allowed to call their cheese.

And for Number 10, this sudden reference to an "Australian deal" seems to be an effort to rebrand what the government's written statement later said was a relationship "based simply on the Withdrawal Agreement deal agreed in October 2019, including the Protocol in Ireland/Northern Ireland".

In other words, if there isn't a comprehensive trade deal by the end of the year, the UK would move to a situation trading with the EU on World Trade Organisation terms. This would mean taxes on exports and customs checks which, if it came to pass, could be massively disruptive for businesses and very costly for the economy.

An "Australia-style deal" sounds a lot less scary than the "no deal" circumstance that politicians have talked about for so long. And yes, the issues on paying the EU bill, citizens' rights and the Irish border were all settled in the last few years and the overall divorce deal agreed before our departure last week.

But when it comes to the trade arrangements, it is not the case that as one government official tried to suggest "no deal is not a concept" .
UK  EU  Brexit  trade  negotiations  Canada  tariffs  JohnsonBoris  standards  regulation  alignment  divergence  WTO  Australia  checking  withdrawalAgreement  transition  dctagged  dc:creator=KuenssbergLaura 
14 hours ago by petej
Inside the mind of Dominic Cummings | Politics | The Guardian
To balance Cummings’s imagined course of maths, science and history, I could, teasingly, suggest that a no less valuable preparation for public life might be a combination of philosophy, jurisprudence and literature. Philosophy would introduce habits of analysis and undermine certainty or dogmatism; jurisprudence would teach an appreciation of rules, procedures and the judgment of consequences; and the study of literature would weaken the hold of cliche and all exaggerated beliefs in the fixity of meaning. It might be said, not altogether unfairly, that Cummings’s course would produce doers and mine would produce critics (though the disciplines I suggest constantly generate new ideas rather than merely criticising old ones), but I would say that a healthy politics needs both, and that the more we emphasise the first category and try to give its occupants their head, the more we need the virtues of the second category to hold them in check.
UK  politics  CummingsDominic  ideas  education  science  government  SnowCP  interdisciplinarity  specialisation  research  arts  philosophy  CivilService  legal  evolution  Hayek  entrepreneurs  dctagged  dc:creator=ColliniStefan 
yesterday by petej
Sajid Javid resigns as chancellor amid Johnson reshuffle | Politics | The Guardian
A source close to Javid said: “He has turned down the job of chancellor of the exchequer. The PM said he had to fire all his special advisers and replace them with No 10 special advisers to make it one team. The chancellor said no self-respecting minister would accept those terms.”
UK  politics  Cabinet  JohnsonBoris  JavidSajid  resignation  CummingsDominic  SunakRishi 
4 days ago by petej
Lord Ashcroft's report on Labour, based on a poll of 10,000 and 18 focus groups in seats Labour lost. Nothing in these two paragraphs is unexpected, but it's great that he's collected the evidence to back up what many of us have been saying for years.
Lord Ashcroft's report on Labour, based on a poll of 10,000 and 18 focus groups in seats Labour lost. Nothing in these two paragraphs is unexpected, but it's great that he's collected the evidence to back up what many of us have been saying for years.
UK  politics  LabourParty  generalElection  ge2019  AshcroftMichael  defeat  CorbynJeremy  politicalCorrectness  racism  bigotry  leadership 
6 days ago by petej
Two years after Windrush, we’re deporting people who’ve only known Britain as home | David Lammy | Opinion | The Guardian
Every single one of the men has already served the sentence the judge deemed appropriate for their crime. Each has endured additional time in immigration detention centres. And now these men will receive a third punishment – complete ostracisation from their communities – which in some cases could become a death sentence. The Guardian revealed that at least five people had been killed after being deported to Jamaica since the Windrush scandal was exposed.
UK  Jamaica  deportation  crime  punishment  safety  humanRights  HomeOffice  Windrush  dctagged  dc:creator=LammyDavid 
6 days ago by petej
Labour let the right shape both sides of the Brexit debate | openDemocracy
Many commentators, including myself, always felt that there was simply no point in Labour trying to pretend to be anything but a party of Remain. The vast majority of its members, and of its voters, even in most Leave-supporting constituencies, supported Remain. Yes, there was always a vocal minority of party members who had always taken a principled position against EU membership. But they were a small proportion of the membership and – this cannot be stressed enough times – less than one third of our voters in 2017 were Leavers. The now-popular idea that a tiny middle-class elite within the party ‘betrayed’ the working class by abandoning the party support for Leave is nonsense. The fact that a small, but highly visible, and strategically crucial section of that voter base – older, white workers and retirees in former industrial areas – took a different view, cannot be allowed to obscure that fact.

Nor can it be allowed to obscure the fact that it is very clear why those voters supported Leave. In all but negligible proportions, they did not support it out of a lifelong commitment to Bennite socialism and to Labour’s 1983 manifesto (that had promised to withdraw from the European Economic Community). They voted leave because they had been persuaded by a right-wing nationalist narrative, fed to them daily by the tabloid press for decades. Within the terms of this narrative, hostility to ‘immigration’ was not a coded way of expressing hostility to neoliberalism: it was a direct alternative to a genuinely anti-neoliberal politics. The tabloids were not saying, and voters on the doorsteps were not saying ‘we hate the EU because we hate neoliberalism’. They were saying ‘we hate immigrants because they take our jobs and homes’, because they had been systematically presented with an anti-immigration narrative, for literally decades, as a way of closing off the possibility of an anti-neoliberal narrative winning popular support. Of course, as I pointed out in the second article of this series, neoliberalism and globalisation were the true sources of the problems that voters were objecting to. But they were objecting to them in terms that were entirely shaped by the discourse of the right-wing press. As such, claiming that support for Brexit was simply an expression of anti-neoliberal sentiment is about as accurate as saying that support for Trump’s wall in the USA is a direct expression of radical class consciousness.
UK  politics  LabourParty  generalElection  ge2019  Brexit  EU  EEC  trade  integration  ToryParty  Blairism  deregulation  neoliberalism  workingClass  immigration  misinformation  Leave  Remain  compromise  softBrexit  freedomOfMovement  tabloids  Lexit  Unite  MorningStar  socialDemocracy  culture  cosmopolitanism  conservatism  PeoplesVote  centrism  xenophobia  nationalism  dctagged  dc:creator=GilbertJeremy 
12 days ago by petej
« earlier      
per page:    204080120160

Copy this bookmark:

to read