Christy42 wrote: » Does that mean they are losing every non EU deal they have via the EU? Plus if they are sticking with EU refs for the moment it cuts out most major countries who will demand their own standards from the UK.
A reallocation of council funding could redirect hundreds of millions of pounds from so-called left-behind communities in the north of England to the leafy southern shires, analysis has found, leaving many newly Conservative voting “red wall” areas facing fresh cuts to local services. Under a review of the local authority funding formula, £320m a year could be shifted out of councils in England’s most deprived areas while Tory-controlled shire councils mainly in the south-east gain £300m. ... The LGA’s Labour group said Hampshire would be the biggest winner, gaining £35m a year, followed by Surrey county council (£25m), which is home to 11 Conservative MPs including the cabinet members Dominic Raab and Michael Gove. Big losers include Birmingham, which would lose more than £48m. The Tory-run Northamptonshire county council, which declared effective bankruptcy in 2018 after years of financial mismanagement and is still in special measures, is set to get a £7.5m boost to its budget. At the time, ministers have refused to bail it out, saying this would be a reward for failure.
Enzokk wrote: » Imagine being a newly elected Tory MP from a previous Labour constituency and having the defend a policy that has your council lose millions in funding but Johnson's receives £8.8m extra. This review was done under Theresa May so I am sure it just looks like a coincidence that areas with Labour MP's before received major cuts and rural Tory voting areas saw gains.Former 'red wall' areas could lose millions in council funding review It is going to be fascinating to see what happens in the UK in the next few years. Seeing that it is the nasty party in charge I doubt they care much at all.
CrabRevolution wrote: » At this stage I think it's a case of you reap what you sow. These people have decided that Brexit is the solution to their problems. Let them live with the consequences.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Think it's safe to say Varadkar really got under the skin of the UK Brexit press this morning with his comments to the BBC.
Mr.Wemmick wrote: » And if the EU don't help them by doing all the work
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I think this is the most likely outcome. Johnson will huff and puff, the negotiators will ask the EU for the impossible and then at the last minute Johnson will take whatever deal the EU offers because he's got nothing and needs to "win". Just like the WA talks, in fact.
Enzokk wrote: » I think it is likely he will go for BRINO but at the same time I can easily see him pivoting to a USA deal and doing what he said he would, no alignment or rule taking from the EU. History shows he is able to sell a loss as a win so he can easily sell a BRINO deal as something that it isn't. The question is whether the likes of Francois and Baker will be happy with it and what fuss they will or can kick up.
Enzokk wrote: I think it is likely he will go for BRINO but at the same time I can easily see him pivoting to a USA deal and doing what he said he would, no alignment or rule taking from the EU. History shows he is able to sell a loss as a win so he can easily sell a BRINO deal as something that it isn't. The question is whether the likes of Francois and Baker will be happy with it and what fuss they will or can kick up.
RobMc59 wrote: » The majority of people in the UK would be happy with a deal which retains EU standards and don't see it as 'towing the line'-its only the 'get rich quick toffs' who are deluded.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » Surprising that only 8,000 appear to be employed in the British fishing industry:https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0127/1111145-uk-finance-sector-ready-to-wave-brexit-white-flag/
Consultants EY said this week that around 7,000 financial services jobs will move from Britain to staff new EU hubs.
Seth Brundle wrote: » I'd be curious to know what the percentage of people in the UK are aware that the EU has largely been responsible for high quality standards and that there's a high probability of them lowering as a result of Brexit.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Predictably, blaming Ireland has already started. An opinion piece in The Telegraph by Asa Bennet (one of The Telegraph's Brexit yapping dogs) has the headline:"Leo Varadkar shouldn't trash Boris Johnson - he owes him for getting Brexit done" And here is the final paragraph:Mr Varadkar will not be able to congratulate his "winning team" for much if he ends up pushing the Prime Minister to take the UK out to trade on WTO terms with Ireland and the rest of the world. It was the Irish wot done it.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » More the converse - if the Taoiseach hadn't gone to Cheshire, Johnson wouldn't have been able to keep to his own timetable. Laura Kuenssberg also had a curious tweet to promote her article, saying "Varadkar...claims 'colonial' UK never understood Ireland" - unless I'm mistaken, the word never appears in her article ...https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1221682011330531328
Nody wrote: » Well seeing how they changed treasury rules to get more projects going Boris could simply declare he's not implementing it "because it's not fair" and the local Tories can sell it as proof of their clout with Boris and why they should be re-elected again. Tories love money but to get money they need to stay in power; hence I don't see that as unrealistic choice to make (esp. as it came from May so can blame her for it as it was not a Boris Johnson policy; he's a man of the people after all).
listermint wrote: » No offense to the supposed majority (i dispute your statement on that) But the 'average' man/woman on the street would be happy with whatever spin the usual suspect newspapers put on their anti EU agenda driven by there basically Libertarian owners. The notion that the average person on the street had any real issues with the EU or toeing the line before 2015 is factually incorrect. Its spin, spin and more spin. If those papers closed up shop tomorrow morning the relationship would improve almost immediately.
Now, to get a grip on just how influential media coverage has been, note recent fascinating findings from YouGov. In its poll weeks before the referendum, when anti-migrant press coverage was at its zenith, 56% thought “immigration and asylum” were the most important issues facing Britain. Weeks later, soon after the vote, that was down to 46%. By the following year, with the press already beginning to tail off its migration coverage, the number had fallen to 35%. Much more telling is the most recent set of findings. Of the 24 polls in 2019, the average number of people who believed immigration was the key issue was 23%, with the latest total standing at just 20%. In other words, the downplaying of immigration in newspapers has been mirrored by the public’s attitude towards the subject. Lack of coverage equals lack of interest. Where is that “crisis” of 2016 in 2020? It does not exist because it never did exist. It may be, given their terminal decline, that newspapers are never able to mount such a campaign again. So what? They have already done their worst by encouraging and exploiting deep divisions in society while splitting us off from Europe. Now that really is a crisis.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Varadkar just called the UK a small country on the BBC's main evening news. They won't like that :pac:
brickster69 wrote: » What, a nuclear superpower, global leader in financial services and near 3 TRN economy. Not to mention equal to the lowest 19 EU states combined.
