Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
If the answer is No, then I might be persuadable to vote to Leave, provided there's a reasonable prospect of defending our trade interests. I was hoping that the Leave side would address this point, and maybe they will. We shall see.
As you can see, I've got a logical and clearly articulated position. Others may disagree with it, that's fine.
You have a position that it is impossible for anyone to honestly answer, as you know damn well - given that we have spoken about it before. The Out side cannot possibly say what the future relationship will be. That will be a decision for HMG in negotiation with the EU.
So bleats about "I'd like to know ..." are disingenuous and, to be frank, beneath you,
I just want to know what the Leave side would be aiming at (and if it's plausible, of course).
If the answer is 'Haven't a clue, guv', or 'Who cares?' then that's fine. I'll vote to stay in, as will nearly everyone else.
What's extraordinary about those arguing against me and even accusing me of being disingenuous is that these are issues which the Leave side absolutely has to address if it is to have any hope of winning. The Remain side's strongest card is the 'leap in the dark' issue. From what the Outers here are saying, it really is a leap in the dark, and they don't care.
Fair enough, but don't expect to win a referendum that way.
So in summary we are expected to debate an unknown deal for in vs an unknown deal for out.
I can't think why the nation at large isn't gripped by this topic..
Not for me, mate. I will vote to stay on what we have got at the moment. I don't need to see the results of any renegotiation. Particularly, I do not want to see any changes to the free movement of people.
I am with Adam Smith on this one.
You can't have what we gave got at the moment. It is the one thing that is not on offer.
Mr. Antifrank, if we vote Out, and basically stay In (the Boris Idiocy), the Conservatives will implode with fury. It would probably bring down Cameron.
I see Watson remains a creature of slime and filth.
I assume that Mrs Brittan can't sue for slander? Watson's comments about her husband by implication would surely cause a reasonable person to think worse of her for standing by a man alleged to have done such vile things?
Mr. Antifrank, if we vote Out, and basically stay In (the Boris Idiocy), the Conservatives will implode with fury. It would probably bring down Cameron.
I see Watson remains a creature of slime and filth.
I assume that Mrs Brittan can't sue for slander? Watson's comments about her husband by implication would surely cause a reasonable person to think worse of her for standing by a man alleged to have done such vile things?
I think the EU is heading towards greater integration, and the eurozone bloc has a critical mass for QMV which is only to our disadvantage. The EU has also shown in recent history to renege upon deals and be heavy-handed. Given that, voting Out is a perfectly rational perspective.
Shown up, indeed. You tinker.
Mr. Surbiton, Miliband was neck-and-neck, lest we forget.
Miliband did not receive the heap of abuse which has been inflicted upon Corbyn. Maybe Corbyn has handled it well.
In one sense it is good. These accusations and distortions will be old news soon.
Mr. Antifrank, if we vote Out, and basically stay In (the Boris Idiocy), the Conservatives will implode with fury. It would probably bring down Cameron.
I see Watson remains a creature of slime and filth.
I assume that Mrs Brittan can't sue for slander? Watson's comments about her husband by implication would surely cause a reasonable person to think worse of her for standing by a man alleged to have done such vile things?
In theory, it is possible to defame someone even without mentioning them, if it is clear to whom you are referring. So it could be possible to defame Mrs B by saying or implying that she knew what her husband had done, approved of it, turned a blind eye, helped him or whatever. But she can't simply sue on behalf of her husband. Nor can she sue simply on the basis of the hurt and distress caused to her.
I should stress that I have no idea whether Tom Watson has said anything of the kind.
Whilst I have a clear vision for what I would like to see post Brexit it is disingenuous for the Remain side to talk about needing a definite plan from Leave. Not least because it is very unlikely anyone currently involved in Leave will actually have any control over the post referendum negotiations. That will be decided by whoever is leading the Government post referendum. And since we have no idea who that will be and all the leading contenders are Europhiles it is impossible to say what their negotiating position will be.
As an aside it is also the case that Remain do not have a consistent or coherent view of what a post referendum position should be for the UK. All we know is it won't be what we have now as the whole dynamic with the EU will have changed.
Mr. Dodd, also famous for having the best ever videogame version of a film. It's probably awful now, but back then it was fantastic.
Mr. Nabavi, I take the opposite view. If I'm on the second floor of a burning building, I'd sooner leap into the dark than hope I'll be miraculously rescued. The EU is in a bad place now and heading in a direction diametrically opposed to our own interests. If In doesn't have a good argument, and it doesn't (aside from the £480m I may receive), I'll vote Out.
Your unwillingness to engage in any sensible way with Mr Nabavi points just shows you up. The whole issue revolves around leaping into the dark.
Only if you're stupid enough to push dumb PR lines.
Thanks for proving my point about how stupid and ignorant rabid Outers have become already. Saying leap without any attempt to say where to and how and will it be just as hot is just pathetic. It also conveniently makes up a fire that we have to escape.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
If the answer is No, then I might be persuadable to vote to Leave, provided there's a reasonable prospect of defending our trade interests. I was hoping that the Leave side would address this point, and maybe they will. We shall see.
As you can see, I've got a logical and clearly articulated position. Others may disagree with it, that's fine.
You have a position that it is impossible for anyone to honestly answer, as you know damn well - given that we have spoken about it before. The Out side cannot possibly say what the future relationship will be. That will be a decision for HMG in negotiation with the EU.
So bleats about "I'd like to know ..." are disingenuous and, to be frank, beneath you,
I just want to know what the Leave side would be aiming at (and if it's plausible, of course).
If the answer is 'Haven't a clue, guv', or 'Who cares?' then that's fine. I'll vote to stay in, as will nearly everyone else.
What's extraordinary about those arguing against me and even accusing me of being disingenuous is that these are issues which the Leave side absolutely has to address if it is to have any hope of winning. The Remain side's strongest card is the 'leap in the dark' issue. From what the Outers here are saying, it really is a leap in the dark, and they don't care.
Fair enough, but don't expect to win a referendum that way.
So in summary we are expected to debate an unknown deal for in vs an unknown deal for out.
I can't think why the nation at large isn't gripped by this topic..
Not for me, mate. I will vote to stay on what we have got at the moment. I don't need to see the results of any renegotiation. Particularly, I do not want to see any changes to the free movement of people.
I am with Adam Smith on this one.
You can't have what we gave got at the moment. It is the one thing that is not on offer.
Sorry to be out of sync with the PB mood, but the awkward point remains, what is the nature of Leon Brittan's exoneration? No-one can seem to tell me. The police have dropped their investigation - fine. Does that make him innocent? If not, he got away with his crimes completely and died of natural causes before facing justice. There are worse calumnies in the world to be incensed by.
Whilst I have a clear vision for what I would like to see post Brexit it is disingenuous for the Remain side to talk about needing a definite plan from Leave. Not least because it is very unlikely anyone currently involved in Leave will actually have any control over the post referendum negotiations. That will be decided by whoever is leading the Government post referendum. And since we have no idea who that will be and all the leading contenders are Europhiles it is impossible to say what their negotiating position will be.
As an aside it is also the case that Remain do not have a consistent or coherent view of what a post referendum position should be for the UK. All we know is it won't be what we have now as the whole dynamic with the EU will have changed.
Whilst a "definite plan" might be over-egging it, I am not sure the problem is symmetric. Staying in does feel like the devil I know, whereas Leave has some viewpoints with which I agree and some with which I do not. So it does feel to me that Leave has more to do.
Sorry to be out of sync with the PB mood, but the awkward point remains, what is the nature of Leon Brittan's exoneration? No-one can seem to tell me. The police have dropped their investigation - fine. Does that make him innocent? If not, he got away with his crimes completely and died of natural causes before facing justice. There are worse calumnies in the world to be incensed by.
Let's put it this way. I murder someone and then die. Does it make me innocent ?
@PickardJE: Jon Lansman: “When there are selections of an MP, I'd like to see MPs who reflect the values of members of the party" http://t.co/7hfpD1mis7
Sorry to be out of sync with the PB mood, but the awkward point remains, what is the nature of Leon Brittan's exoneration? No-one can seem to tell me. The police have dropped their investigation - fine. Does that make him innocent? If not, he got away with his crimes completely and died of natural causes before facing justice. There are worse calumnies in the world to be incensed by.
Let's put it this way. I murder someone and then die. Does it make me innocent ?
That's rarely the choice. Trials (and interviews) are useful fact-finding procedures, and where we don't have one, it will be a rare case we can say that you were a murderer.
Sorry to be out of sync with the PB mood, but the awkward point remains, what is the nature of Leon Brittan's exoneration? No-one can seem to tell me. The police have dropped their investigation - fine. Does that make him innocent? If not, he got away with his crimes completely and died of natural causes before facing justice. There are worse calumnies in the world to be incensed by.
Let's put it this way. I murder someone and then die. Does it make me innocent ?
Typically people are innocent until proven guilty. The case was dropped while he was alive.
Ever closer union is the heisenberg's uncertainty principle of the EU debate. We can know the direction of travel but we can not know how far along the path we have travelled at any given point . Admittedly a poor analogy but I was do pleased with the idea when I thought of it that I decided to use it anyway.
Sorry to be out of sync with the PB mood, but the awkward point remains, what is the nature of Leon Brittan's exoneration? No-one can seem to tell me. The police have dropped their investigation - fine. Does that make him innocent? If not, he got away with his crimes completely and died of natural causes before facing justice. There are worse calumnies in the world to be incensed by.
Innocent until proven guilty in this country.
One assumes things are different in the Motherland.
For sure it seems to mainly have come from the Greens but the Tories do not appear to be getting a similar transfer from UKIP to maintain their lead. This now appears to be a repeated pattern since Corbyn was elected.
In England and Wales Corbyn is actually helping Labour and I do not understand why this can happen, if I was a voter in England I would be petrified of a hard left Corbyn government especially as he will be in hock to the SNP who can keep Scottish taxes low while Corbyn rockets up everything in England and Wales.
In July the movement between Labour and the Tories was 2-3% each way, now it's 6%, same for UKIP from 4-5% to 8-9% and the LD from 10-17% to 14-20%, in the end all movements cancel each other out although they are bigger than in the last GE.
But the Labour disproportional gains from the Greens and the Nationalists is what makes the Labour score 34 instead of 31.
Funny note, although the LD still remain at about the same level as in the GE, they now have an entirely different base as only 56% of 2015LD will vote for them, they replenish the half that has left the LD with all the small scrubs of 1-2-3% from all other parties.
Mr. Dodd, also famous for having the best ever videogame version of a film. It's probably awful now, but back then it was fantastic.
Mr. Nabavi, I take the opposite view. If I'm on the second floor of a burning building, I'd sooner leap into the dark than hope I'll be miraculously rescued. The EU is in a bad place now and heading in a direction diametrically opposed to our own interests. If In doesn't have a good argument, and it doesn't (aside from the £480m I may receive), I'll vote Out.
Your unwillingness to engage in any sensible way with Mr Nabavi points just shows you up. The whole issue revolves around leaping into the dark.
Only if you're stupid enough to push dumb PR lines.
Thanks for proving my point about how stupid and ignorant rabid Outers have become already. Saying leap without any attempt to say where to and how and will it be just as hot is just pathetic. It also conveniently makes up a fire that we have to escape.
@PickardJE: Jon Lansman: “When there are selections of an MP, I'd like to see MPs who reflect the values of members of the party" http://t.co/7hfpD1mis7
Fancy that.
There is one line for me which is RED. I will not support any MP who will vote for bombing Syria without explicit UN Security Council authorisation.
They deserve to be deselected. I resigned from the Labour Party in 2003 and will do so again, if necessary. We had a warmongering PM who should be in the dock in the Hague right now.
For sure it seems to mainly have come from the Greens but the Tories do not appear to be getting a similar transfer from UKIP to maintain their lead. This now appears to be a repeated pattern since Corbyn was elected.
In England and Wales Corbyn is actually helping Labour and I do not understand why this can happen, if I was a voter in England I would be petrified of a hard left Corbyn government especially as he will be in hock to the SNP who can keep Scottish taxes low while Corbyn rockets up everything in England and Wales.
Looks like some kipper to Labour transfer. Although this is all MoE stuff.
I just want to know what the Leave side would be aiming at (and if it's plausible, of course).
If the answer is 'Haven't a clue, guv', or 'Who cares?' then that's fine. I'll vote to stay in, as will nearly everyone else.
What's extraordinary about those arguing against me and even accusing me of being disingenuous is that these are issues which the Leave side absolutely has to address if it is to have any hope of winning. The Remain side's strongest card is the 'leap in the dark' issue. From what the Outers here are saying, it really is a leap in the dark, and they don't care. They don't even care if immigration would be the same as now.
Fair enough, but don't expect to win a referendum that way.
I could write you a piece saying what I would like the future to be and so could everyone who would prefer to see the UK out, but as none of us would ever be in a position to even negotiate the terms of settlement what good would that be. The Out side is in a catch 22, position and you know that because we, you and I, have discussed it before.
Asking a question that you already know cannot be honestly answered is disingenuous.
Sorry to be out of sync with the PB mood, but the awkward point remains, what is the nature of Leon Brittan's exoneration? No-one can seem to tell me. The police have dropped their investigation - fine. Does that make him innocent? If not, he got away with his crimes completely and died of natural causes before facing justice. There are worse calumnies in the world to be incensed by.
The principle of innocent until proven guilty still stands.
Also, the police dropped the case due to a lack of evidence.
You asked on an earlier thread for any analysis of likely free trade agreements. Iain Mansfield who is the Director of UK Trade and Investment at the UK's Embassy in the Philippines looked at likely FTAs in his winning entry for the IEA Brexit Prize. This can be found from page 17 onwards.
Sorry to be out of sync with the PB mood, but the awkward point remains, what is the nature of Leon Brittan's exoneration? No-one can seem to tell me. The police have dropped their investigation - fine. Does that make him innocent? If not, he got away with his crimes completely and died of natural causes before facing justice. There are worse calumnies in the world to be incensed by.
Innocent until proven guilty in this country.
One assumes things are different in the Motherland.
Innocent in the eyes of the law. I'm talking about whether he did it, which is an entirely different matter.
@PickardJE: Jon Lansman: “When there are selections of an MP, I'd like to see MPs who reflect the values of members of the party" http://t.co/7hfpD1mis7
Fancy that.
There is one line for me which is RED. I will not support any MP who will vote for bombing Syria without explicit UN Security Council authorisation.
They deserve to be deselected. I resigned from the Labour Party in 2003 and will do so again, if necessary. We had a warmongering PM who should be in the dock in the Hague right now.
Cue TSE with the great bar chart showing number of years since a majority for the various flavours of Labour.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
If the answer is No, then I might be persuadable to vote to Leave, provided there's a reasonable prospect of defending our trade interests. I was hoping that the Leave side would address this point, and maybe they will. We shall see.
As you can see, I've got a logical and clearly articulated position. Others may disagree with it, that's fine.
You have a position that it is impossible for anyone to honestly answer, as you know damn well - given that we have spoken about it before. The Out side cannot possibly say what the future relationship will be. That will be a decision for HMG in negotiation with the EU.
So bleats about "I'd like to know ..." are disingenuous and, to be frank, beneath you,
I just want to know what the Leave side would be aiming at (and if it's plausible, of course).
If the answer is 'Haven't a clue, guv', or 'Who cares?' then that's fine. I'll vote to stay in, as will nearly everyone else.
What's extraordinary about those arguing against me and even accusing me of being disingenuous is that these are issues which the Leave side absolutely has to address if it is to have any hope of winning. The Remain side's strongest card is the 'leap in the dark' issue. From what the Outers here are saying, it really is a leap in the dark, and they don't care.
Fair enough, but don't expect to win a referendum that way.
So in summary we are expected to debate an unknown deal for in vs an unknown deal for out.
I can't think why the nation at large isn't gripped by this topic..
That's probably about the most accurate description I've read so far. And to think that we may have another two years of this.
For sure it seems to mainly have come from the Greens but the Tories do not appear to be getting a similar transfer from UKIP to maintain their lead. This now appears to be a repeated pattern since Corbyn was elected.
In England and Wales Corbyn is actually helping Labour and I do not understand why this can happen, if I was a voter in England I would be petrified of a hard left Corbyn government especially as he will be in hock to the SNP who can keep Scottish taxes low while Corbyn rockets up everything in England and Wales.
Looks like some kipper to Labour transfer. Although this is all MoE stuff.
There is a clear trend across polls, however. Labour have narrowed the gap on the Tories who are fairly static. This should be a concern for everyone outside Scotland who at least will be fully protected from Corbynism by the SNP and Corbyn's reliance on the SNP to govern England.
Sorry to be out of sync with the PB mood, but the awkward point remains, what is the nature of Leon Brittan's exoneration? No-one can seem to tell me. The police have dropped their investigation - fine. Does that make him innocent? If not, he got away with his crimes completely and died of natural causes before facing justice. There are worse calumnies in the world to be incensed by.
Innocent until proven guilty in this country.
One assumes things are different in the Motherland.
Innocent in the eyes of the law. I'm talking about whether he did it, which is an entirely different matter.
It's reasonable to say no, since the police dropped the investigation.
For sure it seems to mainly have come from the Greens but the Tories do not appear to be getting a similar transfer from UKIP to maintain their lead. This now appears to be a repeated pattern since Corbyn was elected.
In England and Wales Corbyn is actually helping Labour and I do not understand why this can happen, if I was a voter in England I would be petrified of a hard left Corbyn government especially as he will be in hock to the SNP who can keep Scottish taxes low while Corbyn rockets up everything in England and Wales.
Polling now is a really rather pointless exercise. There are no elections on the imminent horizon. People are not focusing on any forthcoming campaigns or votes. There is a lot of hot air.
Corbyn isn't driving support to Labour. Once real elections with real votes start looming large on the event horizon that is when we will see the drop in Labour support - when it really matters. Corbyn is going to be a vote loser for Labour - no matter what the polls say now.
Sorry to be out of sync with the PB mood, but the awkward point remains, what is the nature of Leon Brittan's exoneration? No-one can seem to tell me. The police have dropped their investigation - fine. Does that make him innocent? If not, he got away with his crimes completely and died of natural causes before facing justice. There are worse calumnies in the world to be incensed by.
Let's put it this way. I murder someone and then die. Does it make me innocent ?
How about, you are alleged to have abused someone and are then diagnosed with Alzheimers. Should you be allowed to escape any trial, and your victims fail to receive justice?
Sorry to be out of sync with the PB mood, but the awkward point remains, what is the nature of Leon Brittan's exoneration? No-one can seem to tell me. The police have dropped their investigation - fine. Does that make him innocent? If not, he got away with his crimes completely and died of natural causes before facing justice. There are worse injustices in the world to be incensed by.
Everyone - including Lord Brittan - is innocent until proven guilty. No charges were ever laid and an allegation does not prove anything at all.
An allegation of rape was made against him. The allegation related to years and years ago. The police investigated and found no evidence. Allegedly, under pressure from Watson, they reopened the investigation and again found no evidence. Despite closing it again they did not tell him before his death that the matter was closed. This caused distress to a dying man and his wife.
Watson also publicised this in the HoC using Parliamentary privilege. He also publicised claims made by another man that Lord B was at the centre of a paedophile network involving him, Harvey Proctor, Edward Heath, Lord Bramall and others, which involved activities allegedly taking place at a South London Guest House. He called Lord B an evil man.
These allegations have been investigated and, so far, the police have found - I understand - no evidence to support the claims and some evidence, possibly, that the alleged victims may have been coached and/or had names of possible abusers suggested to them, either by a journalistic website, Exaro, and/or by a former Labour councillor with a conviction for fraud who, according to this weekend's newspapers was up for making accusations against Tories (again allegedly). All of this would render any prosecutions most problematic.
The accusations against Watson are not that he reported the matter to the police, which is entirely proper, but that he (a) may have interfered with a police investigation; (b) abused Parliamentary privilege to make accusations while the investigation was still ongoing for no good reason; and (c) made statements about Lord B's guilt and alleged evilness before the man had even been charged let alone convicted.
The principle of innocent until proved guilty is absolutely fundamental to our system of justice and Watson, as a lawmaker, should know this and respect it.
The case against him is that he did not and that his reasons were largely party political and/or self-aggrandisement. He is seeking to confuse matters by claiming that people were trying to stop him raising serious allegations with the proper authorities for them to investigate. This is not the case. Had he done that and only that no-one would be criticising him.
Sorry to be out of sync with the PB mood, but the awkward point remains, what is the nature of Leon Brittan's exoneration? No-one can seem to tell me. The police have dropped their investigation - fine. Does that make him innocent? If not, he got away with his crimes completely and died of natural causes before facing justice. There are worse injustices in the world to be incensed by.
Everyone - including Lord Brittan - is innocent until proven guilty. No charges were ever laid and an allegation does not prove anything at all.
An allegation of rape was made against him. The allegation related to years and years ago. The police investigated and found no evidence. Allegedly, under pressure from Watson, they reopened the investigation and again found no evidence. Despite closing it again they did not tell him before his death that the matter was closed. This caused distress to a dying man and his wife.
Watson also publicised this in the HoC using Parliamentary privilege. He also publicised claims made by another man that Lord B was at the centre of a paedophile network involving him, Harvey Proctor, Edward Heath, Lord Bramall and others, which involved activities allegedly taking place at a South London Guest House. He called Lord B an evil man.
These allegations have been investigated and, so far, the police have found - I understand - no evidence to support the claims and some evidence, possibly, that the alleged victims may have been coached and/or had names of possible abusers suggested to them, either by a journalistic website, Exaro, and/or by a former Labour councillor with a conviction for fraud who, according to this weekend's newspapers was up for making accusations against Tories (again allegedly). All of this would render any prosecutions most problematic.
The accusations against Watson are not that he reported the matter to the police, which is entirely proper, but that he (a) may have interfered with a police investigation; (b) abused Parliamentary privilege to make accusations while the investigation was still ongoing for no good reason; and (c) made statements about Lord B's guilt and alleged evilness before the man had even been charged let alone convicted.
The principle of innocent until proved guilty is absolutely fundamental to our system of justice and Watson, as a lawmaker, should know this and respect it.
The case against him is that he did not and that his reasons were largely party political and/or self-aggrandisement. He is seeking to confuse matters by claiming that people were trying to stop him raising serious allegations with the proper authorities for them to investigate. This is not the case. Had he done that and only that no-one would be criticising him.
Sorry to be out of sync with the PB mood, but the awkward point remains, what is the nature of Leon Brittan's exoneration? No-one can seem to tell me. The police have dropped their investigation - fine. Does that make him innocent? If not, he got away with his crimes completely and died of natural causes before facing justice. There are worse calumnies in the world to be incensed by.
Innocent until proven guilty in this country.
One assumes things are different in the Motherland.
Innocent in the eyes of the law. I'm talking about whether he did it, which is an entirely different matter.
I suggest you let this one go. Brittan was never charged. The police investigation was dropped 6 months before he died. Speculating about things you know less-than-nothing about will do you more harm than good.
Sorry to be out of sync with the PB mood, but the awkward point remains, what is the nature of Leon Brittan's exoneration? No-one can seem to tell me. The police have dropped their investigation - fine. Does that make him innocent? If not, he got away with his crimes completely and died of natural causes before facing justice. There are worse calumnies in the world to be incensed by.
Let's put it this way. I murder someone and then die. Does it make me innocent ?
Well quite.
I can understand where PBers are coming from - especially those who feel that there's a partisan element and their party has been unfairly tainted. However, I feel people here are only acting on the trickle of information coming from an extremely curtailed press.
Just recently there has been another case, where an 'alleger' against someone very powerful currently in politics has been hounded to the extent of being brought to trial for perverting the course of justice. He's just been acquitted, and his case has gained considerably in credibility. I will not repeat the name out of caution for PB (though it's in the public domain) but the alleger is Ben Fellowes for those who wish to research. So it's not all one way traffic, it's just this stuff doesn't get reported.
In my opinion, the spring clean has only just started and we haven't even looked behind the dresser.
Sorry to be out of sync with the PB mood, but the awkward point remains, what is the nature of Leon Brittan's exoneration? No-one can seem to tell me. The police have dropped their investigation - fine. Does that make him innocent? If not, he got away with his crimes completely and died of natural causes before facing justice. There are worse calumnies in the world to be incensed by.
Let's put it this way. I murder someone and then die. Does it make me innocent ?
Well quite.
I can understand where PBers are coming from - especially those who feel that there's a partisan element and their party has been unfairly tainted. However, I feel people here are only acting on the trickle of information coming from an extremely curtailed press.
Just recently there has been another case, where an 'alleger' against someone very powerful currently in politics has been hounded to the extent of being brought to trial for perverting the course of justice. He's just been acquitted, and his case has gained considerably in credibility. I will not repeat the name out of caution for PB (though it's in the public domain) but the alleger is Ben Fellowes for those who wish to research. So it's not all one way traffic, it's just this stuff doesn't get reported.
In my opinion, the spring clean has only just started and we haven't even looked behind the dresser.
Ah, the no smoke without fire approach. What a civilised way to administer justice and asign guilt.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
If the answer is No, then I might be persuadable to vote to Leave, provided there's a reasonable prospect of defending our trade interests. I was hoping that the Leave side would address this point, and maybe they will. We shall see.
As you can see, I've got a logical and clearly articulated position. Others may disagree with it, that's fine.
You have a position that it is impossible for anyone to honestly answer, as you know damn well - given that we have spoken about it before. The Out side cannot possibly say what the future relationship will be. That will be a decision for HMG in negotiation with the EU.
So bleats about "I'd like to know ..." are disingenuous and, to be frank, beneath you,
I just want to know what the Leave side would be aiming at (and if it's plausible, of course).
If the answer is 'Haven't a clue, guv', or 'Who cares?' then that's fine. I'll vote to stay in, as will nearly everyone else.
What's extraordinary about those arguing against me and even accusing me of being disingenuous is that these are issues which the Leave side absolutely has to address if it is to have any hope of winning. The Remain side's strongest card is the 'leap in the dark' issue. From what the Outers here are saying, it really is a leap in the dark, and they don't care.
Fair enough, but don't expect to win a referendum that way.
So in summary we are expected to debate an unknown deal for in vs an unknown deal for out.
I can't think why the nation at large isn't gripped by this topic..
That's probably about the most accurate description I've read so far. And to think that we may have another two years of this.
Sorry to be out of sync with the PB mood, but the awkward point remains, what is the nature of Leon Brittan's exoneration? No-one can seem to tell me. The police have dropped their investigation - fine. Does that make him innocent? If not, he got away with his crimes completely and died of natural causes before facing justice. There are worse calumnies in the world to be incensed by.
Let's put it this way. I murder someone and then die. Does it make me innocent ?
Well quite.
I can understand where PBers are coming from - especially those who feel that there's a partisan element and their party has been unfairly tainted. However, I feel people here are only acting on the trickle of information coming from an extremely curtailed press.
Just recently there has been another case, where an 'alleger' against someone very powerful currently in politics has been hounded to the extent of being brought to trial for perverting the course of justice. He's just been acquitted, and his case has gained considerably in credibility. I will not repeat the name out of caution for PB (though it's in the public domain) but the alleger is Ben Fellowes for those who wish to research. So it's not all one way traffic, it's just this stuff doesn't get reported.
In my opinion, the spring clean has only just started and we haven't even looked behind the dresser.
Ah, the no smoke without fire approach. What a civilised way to administer justice and asign guilt.
Sorry to be out of sync with the PB mood, but the awkward point remains, what is the nature of Leon Brittan's exoneration? No-one can seem to tell me. The police have dropped their investigation - fine. Does that make him innocent? If not, he got away with his crimes completely and died of natural causes before facing justice. There are worse calumnies in the world to be incensed by.
Innocent until proven guilty in this country.
One assumes things are different in the Motherland.
Innocent in the eyes of the law. I'm talking about whether he did it, which is an entirely different matter.
Not in the UK it isn't. The only method we have for establishing guilt is a trial. It's a pretty well-established and long-standing method. It's designed to stop people making baseless accusations which others then believe and causing real harm to people. People can come up with evidence and put it in the hands of authorities. But what people can't do - or not in a civilised society - is go round saying "Ah well, he may not have been convicted by a court but we all know he's guilty really". We especially can't do that if we're a lawmaker whom some of the more naive among us would like to think would have some passing acquaintance with - if not actual respect for - one of the basic precepts of English criminal law.
This is exactly the sort of activity for which the press were criticised over Christopher Jeffreys (implying his guilt). It is odd given Watson's links with Hacked Off that he has apparently done the same sort of smear job that the papers did there and which he roundly criticised.
Brexit prize winner - he suggested EFTA, I agree. Note the broadly neutral impact on GDP but an accelerated focus of the UK onto emerging markets that may grow much faster in future:
Scottish Subsample is 54/22/18, Kezia holding the Tories off, SNP pretty much static in the mid 50s.
Thanks.
UKIP retaining 80% of their GE2015 vote. Greens 58%, LD 56%.
These are 56% their truncated vote base. Can this party survive ? Whilst taking into account sub-samples, the UKIP vote is centred around the Midlands and the South. Only 7% in the North.
Brexit prize winner - he suggested EFTA, I agree. Note the broadly neutral impact on GDP but an accelerated focus of the UK onto emerging markets that may grow much faster in future:
Sorry to be out of sync with the PB mood, but the awkward point remains, what is the nature of Leon Brittan's exoneration? No-one can seem to tell me. The police have dropped their investigation - fine. Does that make him innocent? If not, he got away with his crimes completely and died of natural causes before facing justice. There are worse calumnies in the world to be incensed by.
Innocent until proven guilty in this country.
One assumes things are different in the Motherland.
Innocent in the eyes of the law. I'm talking about whether he did it, which is an entirely different matter.
Not in the UK it isn't. The only method we have for establishing guilt is a trial. It's a pretty well-established and long-standing method. It's designed to stop people making baseless accusations which others then believe and causing real harm to people. People can come up with evidence and put it in the hands of authorities. But what people can't do - or not in a civilised society - is go round saying "Ah well, he may not have been convicted by a court but we all know he's guilty really". We especially can't do that if we're a lawmaker whom some of the more naive among us would like to think would have some passing acquaintance with - if not actual respect for - one of the basic precepts of English criminal law.
This is exactly the sort of activity for which the press were criticised over Christopher Jeffreys (implying his guilt). It is odd given Watson's links with Hacked Off that he has apparently done the same sort of smear job that the papers did there and which he roundly criticised.
Like Hattie, Lucky is a believer in the Court of Public Opinion. Where Hattie stands on the OWG, contrails, 9/11, the 'moon landings', UFOs, and our Lizard Overlords is unclear.
Brexit prize winner - he suggested EFTA, I agree. Note the broadly neutral impact on GDP but an accelerated focus of the UK onto emerging markets that may grow much faster in future:
I expect we will sign up for free movement of labour, but not free movement of job seekers, free movement of welfare recipients or an obligation to advertise jobs to all EU citizens in preference to any non-EU citizen.
I'm reasonably confident that Cameron will get much of that as part of his renegotiation - obviously that's one of the things where we'll need to wait and see.
Without structural protections on QMV none of it matters. And that probably needs treaty change.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
Here is Farage yesterday from about 7:50 in this clip talking about what would happen if we voted LEAVE
On a slightly different theme that illustrate the man. There's a great piece about how Cameron is effectively allied with Al Qaeda in Syria. How did it come to this? Worth a read at:
Comments
CON: 38% (-)
LAB: 34% (+2)
UKIP: 11% (-2)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
GRN: 3% (-)
(via ICM / 09 - 11 Oct)
The dossier "disappeared".
The present Home Secretary said so herself.
In one sense it is good. These accusations and distortions will be old news soon.
I should stress that I have no idea whether Tom Watson has said anything of the kind.
As an aside it is also the case that Remain do not have a consistent or coherent view of what a post referendum position should be for the UK. All we know is it won't be what we have now as the whole dynamic with the EU will have changed.
Saying leap without any attempt to say where to and how and will it be just as hot is just pathetic. It also conveniently makes up a fire that we have to escape.
Fancy that.
One assumes things are different in the Motherland.
For sure it seems to mainly have come from the Greens but the Tories do not appear to be getting a similar transfer from UKIP to maintain their lead. This now appears to be a repeated pattern since Corbyn was elected.
In England and Wales Corbyn is actually helping Labour and I do not understand why this can happen, if I was a voter in England I would be petrified of a hard left Corbyn government especially as he will be in hock to the SNP who can keep Scottish taxes low while Corbyn rockets up everything in England and Wales.
http://www.icmunlimited.com/data/media/pdf/2015_oct_guardian_poll.pdf
http://www.icmunlimited.com/data/media/pdf/2015_july_guardian.pdf
In July the movement between Labour and the Tories was 2-3% each way, now it's 6%, same for UKIP from 4-5% to 8-9% and the LD from 10-17% to 14-20%, in the end all movements cancel each other out although they are bigger than in the last GE.
But the Labour disproportional gains from the Greens and the Nationalists is what makes the Labour score 34 instead of 31.
Funny note, although the LD still remain at about the same level as in the GE, they now have an entirely different base as only 56% of 2015LD will vote for them, they replenish the half that has left the LD with all the small scrubs of 1-2-3% from all other parties.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
Tonight's ICM Guardian poll with LAB just 4% behind equals the best position for party in any poll since GE2015. Good for Corbyn.
we're all happy.
Not difficult I accept.
They deserve to be deselected. I resigned from the Labour Party in 2003 and will do so again, if necessary. We had a warmongering PM who should be in the dock in the Hague right now.
Have to say I am surprised. I thought that Corbyn Labour would be alienating a lot more people by now.
Asking a question that you already know cannot be honestly answered is disingenuous.
Also, the police dropped the case due to a lack of evidence.
What else do you want?
You asked on an earlier thread for any analysis of likely free trade agreements. Iain Mansfield who is the Director of UK Trade and Investment at the UK's Embassy in the Philippines looked at likely FTAs in his winning entry for the IEA Brexit Prize. This can be found from page 17 onwards.
http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Brexit Entry 170_final_bio_web.pdf
And to think that we may have another two years of this.
Nurse!
Corbyn isn't driving support to Labour. Once real elections with real votes start looming large on the event horizon that is when we will see the drop in Labour support - when it really matters. Corbyn is going to be a vote loser for Labour - no matter what the polls say now.
An allegation of rape was made against him. The allegation related to years and years ago. The police investigated and found no evidence. Allegedly, under pressure from Watson, they reopened the investigation and again found no evidence. Despite closing it again they did not tell him before his death that the matter was closed. This caused distress to a dying man and his wife.
Watson also publicised this in the HoC using Parliamentary privilege. He also publicised claims made by another man that Lord B was at the centre of a paedophile network involving him, Harvey Proctor, Edward Heath, Lord Bramall and others, which involved activities allegedly taking place at a South London Guest House. He called Lord B an evil man.
These allegations have been investigated and, so far, the police have found - I understand - no evidence to support the claims and some evidence, possibly, that the alleged victims may have been coached and/or had names of possible abusers suggested to them, either by a journalistic website, Exaro, and/or by a former Labour councillor with a conviction for fraud who, according to this weekend's newspapers was up for making accusations against Tories (again allegedly). All of this would render any prosecutions most problematic.
The accusations against Watson are not that he reported the matter to the police, which is entirely proper, but that he (a) may have interfered with a police investigation; (b) abused Parliamentary privilege to make accusations while the investigation was still ongoing for no good reason; and (c) made statements about Lord B's guilt and alleged evilness before the man had even been charged let alone convicted.
The principle of innocent until proved guilty is absolutely fundamental to our system of justice and Watson, as a lawmaker, should know this and respect it.
The case against him is that he did not and that his reasons were largely party political and/or self-aggrandisement. He is seeking to confuse matters by claiming that people were trying to stop him raising serious allegations with the proper authorities for them to investigate. This is not the case. Had he done that and only that no-one would be criticising him.
Scottish Subsample is 54/22/18, Kezia holding the Tories off, SNP pretty much static in the mid 50s.
I can understand where PBers are coming from - especially those who feel that there's a partisan element and their party has been unfairly tainted. However, I feel people here are only acting on the trickle of information coming from an extremely curtailed press.
Just recently there has been another case, where an 'alleger' against someone very powerful currently in politics has been hounded to the extent of being brought to trial for perverting the course of justice. He's just been acquitted, and his case has gained considerably in credibility. I will not repeat the name out of caution for PB (though it's in the public domain) but the alleger is Ben Fellowes for those who wish to research. So it's not all one way traffic, it's just this stuff doesn't get reported.
In my opinion, the spring clean has only just started and we haven't even looked behind the dresser.
This is exactly the sort of activity for which the press were criticised over Christopher Jeffreys (implying his guilt). It is odd given Watson's links with Hacked Off that he has apparently done the same sort of smear job that the papers did there and which he roundly criticised.
http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-iea-brexit-prize-a-blueprint-for-britain-openness-not-isolation
UKIP retaining 80% of their GE2015 vote. Greens 58%, LD 56%.
These are 56% their truncated vote base. Can this party survive ? Whilst taking into account sub-samples, the UKIP vote is centred around the Midlands and the South. Only 7% in the North.
New Thread New Thread
I'm busy enough as it is.
F*** that makes me feel old!
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2015/10/russia-spoils-everything.html