On "the Benefits of Brexit" issued by UKG.
-Imperial markings: there was no EU ban on imperial markings and sales, nor on use of the crown stamp on pint glasses.
-Turing scheme: nothing prevents an EU Member State putting it in place
-blue passports: EU law never stopped the UK
from preferring blue passports
-the opportunity to reduce taxes on alcohol: the UK's relatively high taxes on alcohol are a domestic choice not an EU obligation (hence booze trips to Calais)
Selling heritage products: Burberry, Northampton handmade shoes, Harris Tweed (page 58), a new independent regulator for English football (p 64), safer streets (p 65), marriages at sea (p 75) and Community Forests (87). Things now feasible only due to Brexit? Absolutely not.
Deploying HMS Queen Elizabeth to the Bay of Bengal (p 18), hosting COP26 and working through NATO (p 99): strictly NOTHING to do with Brexit
Then there are sly attempts to depict measures to reduce the harm flowing from Brexit as benefits: such as action taken to reduce friction at the GB's borders!
I am in two minds about this.
Many investigations-e.g for fraud but also other potentially criminal behaviour - prove to be baseless. Is it right that people should be vilified by public opinion, theguardian.com/world/2022/feb…
their reputation destroyed, sometimes for ever ("there is no smoke without fire" etc) when they have not even be charged? I don't buy the argument that this will only benefit the wealthy & powerful. If there was well established case law, it would benefit everyone & the tabloids
would have to take notice or pay big fines. Often there is far more noise around the investigation itself than there is when it is dropped (often not reported at all) & they can go on limply for years before they are officially closed. Provided there is a public
Interesting from @markpack.
"There’s a lesson we should learn from Brexiters. It’s that for most of the road to the tragedy of the 2016 referendum they weren’t Brexiters but Euro-sceptics. 1/
For most of that time, they weren’t campaigning for Brexit to happen tomorrow, but against a particular aspect of the EU. That is how they built up a broad coalition of support to get Brexit through.2/
In turn, we need to do the same in reverse - to recognise that even many Remainers are put off by ‘let’s rejoin the EU now!’ but that even those who voted Leave can be won over by campaigning issue by issue on the merits of cooperation with our neighbours."
Sounds about right.3/
So true:
"Elections are won by parties with a compelling and optimistic, forward-looking story about themselves and how they will change the country. The Tories still have one; Labour does not." What could this compelling narrative be? 🧵 on.ft.com/3rshLvG via @FT
Labour badly needs all hands on desk and this means including others from outside the now sclerotic Labour movement. In particular Labour needs to work hand in hand with the Libdems & the Greens & even include discussions with & ideas from new parties like True & Fair.
Working with other parties and running as a #ProgressiveAlliance is, as I argued below, the surest way to present a compelling, optimistic & exciting narrative of renewal & modernisation
Yesterday I watched the long debate which took place a few weeks ago between Melanchon & Zemmour. 3 observations in a 🧵 1. the level of arguments & discussion - even between these 2 extremist politicians- was way, way above the standards of UK politics.
This was a genuine debate of ideas & principles. It so happens that I disagree with most of them but it was genuinely interesting. 2. After the end of each discussion theme - e.g. immigration, security, defence- the debate stopped for a Fact Checker which corrected false
assertions & statistics of the 2 candidates, giving them a chance to reply when they were corrected. This showed up the mendacity of Zemmour: when corrected with genuine statistics, he attacked the statistics provenance. Melanchon was far more gracious.
Beth Rigby did it just right: softly, softly, no aggression. Just calm, precise questioning, with a hint of pity. Something which makes it impossible for Johnson to react with his usual aggressive boosterism because it would look out of place & fake. Starmer missed it.
It could have been devastating if it had been calm, cold and forensic, like a scientist dissecting a particularly unpleasant & stinky specimen.
Playing to the gallery was a mistake. Yes, it got laughs on the Labour benches but it didn't do the job.
Homer-Dixon says that a fascist US regime would seek to undermine Canada. I am in no doubt that, should this scenario happen, the Conservatives if still in government would ally with America & join forces to seek to destabilise the EU.
The dangers presented by the Brexiters are not only domestic. Close to & financially supported by the US extreme right, they are a threat to a weakened international order. Some leaders like Draghi or Macron - and hopefully Scholz- see this. Other are oblivious or (🇵🇱🇬🇧🇭🇺)