Westminstenders: Going, going, cummings

[RedToothBrush]

As expected he's fucking off and leaving everyone else to pick up the pieces in January. But it does look like he was eventually shown the door and left with a cardboard box. As he should have been months ago.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Johnson needing an image change, like the shape shifting creep he is, to one that fits more with the incoming Biden Administration. In other words hes got some serious sucking up to do...

... Meanwhile in Brexit land we are going into yet another final week of talks.

Many expect Cummings departure to signal 'the cave in'. The Eu say we havent moved enough and the uk say the EU wants us to do all the moving... Except the EU have done lots of moving. Barnier is still looking for a groundsman to level his field to play. We have yet to work out we aren't Canada and distance is important to trade.

Of course if we don't get a deal, that Pfizer vaccine in Germany that we want, might be hit with delays and extra costs we just can't afford.

Probably a daft question!
That’s true @Chersfrozenface I was thinking of politicians but of course their mostly short termist and cowardly.
Talking of cowardly, yes Frankie David Cameron mouthing off when it looked like he wasn’t getting his own way just made everything worse!! I think a high percentage voted remain in spite of, not because of, Cameron.

@prettybird I’m guessing there were safeguards in the Scottish independence referendum? At the time I remember thinking Cameron was trying to do the same thing as he did with the Scottish referendum - scare people into voting the way he wanted so he could claim victory and put the issue to bed. Didn’t work with either did it!!

DrBlackbird
One amusing side effect of the ski industry impact is that the parents of those folks are highly likely to be shire county Tories
suddenly the impact of their December vote will hit home

Pawfives
Those of us who quoted the legislation were shouted down as remoaners and labelled enemies of the people by the Fail.

@FrankieStein402

At the time this was discussed the govt line was that it was unnecessary because the vote was to be advisory.

Mhmm...

Old hat but the briefing note (7212) for the referendum bill 2nd reading stated:
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s
continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of
2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to
implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a
vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of
referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the
electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in
its policy decisions."

Indeed, but there were people at the time who warned that a. the advisory nature was no reason not to introduce a threshold as it would yield a clearer result, and b. a change in political interpretation of the result was always a possibility.

Pawfives - no there weren't, but there probably should have been. Although the Scots has been stung by a last minute change (which ultimately and indirectly brought down the Callaghan Government) in the "Home Rule" Referendum of 1979, where 40% of the electorate had to vote for it. So even though a good majority voted for it in 1979, purely by staying at home and reducing the turnout, the referendum failed. (As it happened, I'd have voted no back then, but couldn't vote as although I was already on the register, I wasn't quite 18 which meant my vote counted No anyway )

But the Indyref was legislated for as a statutory referendum rather than just an advisory one in the Edinburgh Agreement, so the Westminster Government was committed to carrying out the result.

Oh absolutely agree @ListeningQuietly I was thinking more about the immediate aftermath of the result when there was still the opportunity to get the advisory, need to review, close result narrative established. The way the coalition managed to get the ‘financial crash was caused by Labour spending’ narrative up and running in 2010 should have been a warning. Instead there seemed to be total shock, Osbourne went to ground, Cameron ran away & there was a vacuum for the ‘will of the people’ argument to take hold. I guess we will never know if the worst excesses .- no deal, threat to the GFA, takeover of the Britannia Unchained brigade etc- could have been avoided. If only.

Another warning of what happens when Government health equipment is not transparent and accountable
news.sky.com/story/collective-the-nightclub-fire-and-diluted-disinfectant-that-led-to-the-fall-of-a-government-12134049
The Chumocracy is incredibly dangerous
and will stay that way for years

By the way,
The current Economist front cover is a cracker
as the editorial that goes with it SHREDS the way the current Government are behaving

suddenly the impact of their December vote will hit home

Will it though? Because Daddy has money and they will be able to buy the necessary visas.

Let's stop callling it the chumocracy - let's call it what it is a kleptocracy.

Osbourne went to ground

I think, to be fair, he was ejected at very high speed by Theresa May as possibly the only non "nutter" in the room that could attract sensible Tories. He Had To Go.

And the fact that at 4 years distance he and Hunt appear to be the only vaguely non-zombie Tories left is a testament to the dynamite that was put under the Tories in 2017.

But the world turns, and already the Trumpian look is wearing. And it seems the UK is - predictably - out of step with shifting events.

If Donald Trump wants to really take a dump on the world stage, he could do a lot worse than to suddenly reach out to his best mate Boris Johnson with a gushing word salad of how much Boris support means to him with a TwitterStorm of their best moments before the camera.

Interesting, thanks @prettybird

@Peregrina

suddenly the impact of their December vote will hit home

Will it though? Because Daddy has money and they will be able to buy the necessary visas.

As far as I know the EU only allows hiring from a 3rd country once you show you have exhausted all possibilities from within the EU ?

So it's not a question of "buying" visas for work. It's a question of having skills that can't be sourced internally.

.

The UK ski chalet model was on its last legs even before Brexit: it relied on not paying much more than pocket money in return for accommodation and ski passes. Recent changes to EU rules on secondment meant it was no longer possible to hire chalet staff on a UK contract and companies were going to have to adhere to French employment law and pay French social charges (which are a hell of a lot more onerous for employers than in the UK). So that cheap labour pool was already on its way out. Now COVID and Brexit on top of that will mean that many of these catered chalets won't be viable as businesses - this is a very British focused market, other nationalities tend to self cater.

What has been amazing (I'm in a ski region and on lots of local facebook groups..) is that this all seems to be coming as a huge shock to many Brits looking to work a season this year, and even some businesses who assumed something would be worked out and haven't seem to realise that this is exactly what what stopping Freedom of Movement means. I think there was a feeling that if they got out before the end of the year they would have this season at least but as the rumours are that the stations won't open till January, Brexit will mean that even this season is gone.

As an aside, while perhaps the chalet hosts are kids from well off families, many many British people working in the stations permanently are from working class backgrounds. I know lots of carpenters , plumbers and electricians and lots of northerners who love the biking as much as the skiing here. Most will be able to get permanent residency but their client base will probably have to change dramatically.

As an aside, while perhaps the chalet hosts are kids from well off families, many many British people working in the stations permanently are from working class backgrounds.

I was thinking of these, although I didn't post to say so. They would be the ones who don't have money to oil the wheels for them. Although DGR says that it won't anyway.

From 1 January, post-Brexit, British employees seeking seasonal work as chalet hosts, instructors, drivers and nannies in European ski resorts will find it more difficult to obtain work

Not all British employees. Dual EU citizens will have no problem. Which is most certainly not going to be reported.

Appears to be a bit more complicated than just Brexit;

June 2018 -
"As French authorities clamp down on catered chalet companies a new Code of Conduct has been issued. The traditional chalet business model is under threat."

"It comes just a few weeks after the European Parliament approved revised regulations intended to give seasonal workers, such as chalet hosts and resort staff, better pay and working conditions."

"EU countries have two years to implement the changes but France, which has more catered ski chalets than any other destination, has already adopted them so any chalet companies must comply immediately."

"It’s apparent good news for the seasonal or ‘posted’ worker, but will mean increased costs for the operators–some predict rises of as much as 300%–and, inevitably, higher prices for the customer."

planetski.eu/2018/06/12/uk-chalet-firms-how-to-stay-legal/

"2019 Britain’s impending exit from the EU has already cooled relations with France, but now a new row has erupted in the form of chalet wars."

"The French authorities are clamping down on British chalet operators who have previously dodged European employment law by hiring British workers, posting them overseas in ski resorts and paying them less than locals."

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cold-war-as-french-target-cheap-ski-chalet-labour-mhgnnvkx6

Cross-post with usuallydormant.

And usuallydormant explained better than your cut n'paste as to why it will affect British people more.

@FrankieStein402

> So why did no one have the balls to raise this after the referendum? Especially as it was so close.

Because during the campaign Cameron committed to the implementation of the result - effectively changing the meaning of the referendum without a vote.

May could have rowed back from that and underline the advisory nature had she chosen to. That option was given to her by her advisors - she chose to eschew it.

And usuallydormant explained better than your cut n'paste as to why it will affect British people more.

Yes, she did - but I don't see why something along the lines of the working holiday visas offered to young people from Australia and New Zealand (aged 18-30?) cannot be offered to young British workers - unless EU countries want to be unreasonable.

Interesting article in the Irish Times on British sovereignity www.irishtimes.com/opinion/somebody-needs-to-explain-sovereignty-to-johnson-before-it-is-too-late-1.4416087

I particularly like the bit about how the EU is unmoved by any suggestion that UK sovereignty has some special sacred status.

Consider first sovereignty over British laws – admirable as a guiding objective but misleading as an absolute principle. The UK is negotiating trade deals around the world, seeking to replicate the trade access it already had as part of the EU.

Each of those deals necessarily involves some constraint on British sovereignty. The trade deal with Japan, for example, involves legal limitations on Britain’s use of state aid, an imposition apparently deemed intolerable in the Brexit negotiations. Indeed, the UK’s entire engagement with the wider world represents a sensible sharing of its sovereignty.

Moreover, the EU collectively, as well as its member states individually, is likewise sovereign. The EU has the right to determine the laws governing the access of goods, including British goods, to its market. As the most open trading entity in the world, the EU is willing to use its sovereignty to enter into reasonable trade deals with others, including with the UK. However, it is unmoved by any suggestion that UK sovereignty has some special sacred status.

Then there is the somewhat curious demand for sovereignty over British trade. If the UK wants control over British trade with the EU, it already has that. Nobody can force the UK to accept any compromises in the Brexit negotiations if – a very big if – it is prepared for the immense economic damage it will incur as a result.

The real question is not whether the UK has so-called trade sovereignty but rather whether it will exercise such sovereignty sensibly. To turn down a fair Brexit trade deal, far from demonstrating national control, would signify national impotence.

If, on the other hand, the issue is the UK’s trade with the rest of the world, the UK can reach no meaningful trade deals that do not limit British sovereignty. National control over trade is a contradiction in terms. Absolute control over trade stops at Dover and Heathrow. There is only one way to achieve such control. Don’t export anything.

contd.

People with privilege and contacts will find ways around the visa issues, like many other things with Brexit it is the less better off that will be most penalized.

I spent university summers working in low paid jobs across Europe, thanks to freedom of movement we could just arrive anywhere and look for a job. I also did the US student visa summer and it was a hell of a lot more expensive and complicated. I couldn't afford to do the gap year.

And working holiday visas are so much better than not needing a visa at all. You may have convinced yourself but I doubt if many others are.

Over 30% of the homeless people on the streets of London - who came here looking for work - were EU citizens - that's one of the downsides of freedom of movement.