(1) We'll come up with some words about being nice to non-euro countries, but forget a veto (2) Yes, we were doing it anyway (why is it even on here?) (3) Ever closer union already means what you think it should Mr. Cameron. Let's move on. (4) Nah. You might get something on child benefits, maybe. Really tough crowd.
But we need to find a way to pull the wool over the eyes of British voters to vote Remain, so let's come up with something and give it a nice gloss.
To be continued..
My interpretation: (1) We'll come up with some words about being nice to non-euro countries, but forget a veto (2) Yes, we are doing that as you always push us on that. (3) OK ever closer union is not for everyone we can agree to that. The idea of all nations following same path is history now. (4) Not saying yes to that yet but not ruling it out. If you drop one we will agree to this do we have a deal?
Fair enough. I think that amounts to more or less the same thing.
It would be well below Cameron's minimum (very light as it is) demands so I'd count the renegotiation a failure.
Not that that would prevent him proclaiming it as a success.
First rule of negotiations is demand more than you'd consider to be a success.
So he agrees a deal will be reached when so many here are saying it won't. Be interesting to see if anyone currently laughing at the notion of us getting this deal actually gives credit if it is won or will the line pivot from "we won't get that" to "it's meaningless anyway". I expect the latter.
The PM has made trivial demands, there'll be a sham fight about them, and then a deal will be announced.
Maybe just maybe she was fed up of hateful mail and death threats etc and posted them like she said. Maybe, just maybe, like she said they got edited together badly.
Since no individual was named it can't be libel or slander. There is zero possible reason for this to trigger a by election. How about you have a go at people sending death threats that the Police are investigating rather than the people who react badly to receiving them?
Rusty has come forward. I believe he is something along the lines of a sound engineer from Leicester.
As soon as he came forward she deleted it. How could that lead to a by election exactly.
Blame the victim mentality at its worst. As much as I despise Corbyn I won't send him death threats.
What she did was dishonest and tarnishes the reputation of politicians even more than it already is. A by-election would allow her constituents to decide if her behaviour was acceptable.
Unless she is sentenced to a prison sentence of over 12 months she has a five year term and a General Election is the time to determine if her behaviour over that period is acceptable. I'd be ok with a recall law with safeguards but we don't have one.
Maybe just maybe she was fed up of hateful mail and death threats etc and posted them like she said. Maybe, just maybe, like she said they got edited together badly.
Since no individual was named it can't be libel or slander. There is zero possible reason for this to trigger a by election. How about you have a go at people sending death threats that the Police are investigating rather than the people who react badly to receiving them?
For obvious reasons I tend to sympathise with MPs who get hate mail. But the mail she published and then embellished was pretty mild compared with many. It would have been more sensible to publish the offending email that she says she took it from.
I will say that the only death threat I ever had was from a local hunt supporter who said he'd kill me if I voted for the hunt ban. Rather endearingly, he gave his name and address, not the action of a cunning psychopath. The police had a word with him and we heard nothing more.
Headline: MP sets police on constituent, who is never heard from again.
Although seriously, why include address if one is making a death threat? If the threat is just bluster, well, why was that the threat they reached for so easily? People are strange.
So he agrees a deal will be reached when so many here are saying it won't. Be interesting to see if anyone currently laughing at the notion of us getting this deal actually gives credit if it is won or will the line pivot from "we won't get that" to "it's meaningless anyway". I expect the latter.
The PM has made trivial demands, there'll be a sham fight about them, and then a deal will be announced.
Trivial to you maybe, but you want either out or impossible demands. I'd rather be in the EU with these reforms than in it without. If we are going to stay in then I'd rather take the opportunity of the vote to budge the EU to be a bit better for us.
So he agrees a deal will be reached when so many here are saying it won't. Be interesting to see if anyone currently laughing at the notion of us getting this deal actually gives credit if it is won or will the line pivot from "we won't get that" to "it's meaningless anyway". I expect the latter.
A deal made up of a few token concessions and restricting migrant benefits is hardly ground breaking. Cameron is clearly aiming for it to all be wrapped up in associate membership which will be sold as a fantastic new relationship with the EU. He is manufacturing an argument with EU leaders over migrant benefits to make the negotiation look genuine and can come back and claim a great victory.
So he agrees a deal will be reached when so many here are saying it won't. Be interesting to see if anyone currently laughing at the notion of us getting this deal actually gives credit if it is won or will the line pivot from "we won't get that" to "it's meaningless anyway". I expect the latter.
The PM has made trivial demands, there'll be a sham fight about them, and then a deal will be announced.
Trivial to you maybe, but you want either out or impossible demands. I'd rather be in the EU with these reforms than in it without. If we are going to stay in then I'd rather take the opportunity of the vote to budge the EU to be a bit better for us.
I think it's fair to say that the things I want would never be conceded by the average Eurocrat, and the things they're prepared to offer wouldn't impress me.
So he agrees a deal will be reached when so many here are saying it won't. Be interesting to see if anyone currently laughing at the notion of us getting this deal actually gives credit if it is won or will the line pivot from "we won't get that" to "it's meaningless anyway". I expect the latter.
A deal made up of a few token concessions and restricting migrant benefits is hardly ground breaking. Cameron is clearly aiming for it to all be wrapped up in associate membership which will be sold as a fantastic new relationship with the EU. He is manufacturing an argument with EU leaders over migrant benefits to make the negotiation look genuine and can come back and claim a great victory.
Many people were suggesting we should have a straight in out referendum years ago. Had we done that there'd have been absolutely zero reforms won.
The in work benefits reform if achieved could save us hundred of millions per annum potentially as well as ensuring the migrants we receive are here for the right reasons. That may be trivial to you but it's better than a straight let's stay in with the status quo that eh could have gone for.
You view major reforms only as significant. I view any reform whatsoever as a change.
If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.
It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.
I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.
This ought to have a name too.
It is a bit boring though. The Gherkin, Shard, Cheesegrater and Walkie Talkie have interesting designs which help get them their well known names.
It's like a stack of Borg cubes. Not sure how to get a catchy name out of that, though
I will be voting to Leave, whatever happens with the negotiations. The EU is in a very fundamental Way something I oppose, it is the embodiment of Big Government, removed from the People, passing roles down from on high, each new regulation and in its own way removes a bit of personal freedom and distorters market, and takes us away form the being a free society, open to volunteer free trade with anybody that wants to. As a general role Big country's are more incline to have bigger governments, where it is easer for special interests to lobby the government for special protection or subsidies, at the expense of everybody else, because the everybody else is so big and spared out they do not notice. It is no coincidence that the freest society's and freest markets tend to be in small contrary's e.g. Iceland and New Zealand.
That sead if we are to stay in, and much as I would want it to be otherwise, I suspect Remain will win the referendum regardless, in which case then whatever can be gained out of theses negotiations the better, even if it is small.
Mr. Fire, those parties also support not having the Conservatives in government.
Percentage of the vote is irrelevant. MPs make the PM.
Hard to argue there is "no mandate" for a change over half the population support
Are you sure that most people want to lower the voting age to 16?
Back in my grandparents' time, there was a good case for it. Most people were in work by 15, and could be fighting by 16 (and my great-uncle lied about his age to join the army at 15). But, not now that childhood has been extended.
I believe the new plan is to lower it to 16 months. "Old enough to independently feed, old enough to vote" is the slogan.
'baby led tweeting'
Why stop there?.....Perhaps pregnant mothers should be given the right to vote by proxy for those that "we're unable" to attend the polling station in person?
So he agrees a deal will be reached when so many here are saying it won't. Be interesting to see if anyone currently laughing at the notion of us getting this deal actually gives credit if it is won or will the line pivot from "we won't get that" to "it's meaningless anyway". I expect the latter.
I think many of us have already argued that he's not asking for much. If he gets 'not much', I'm not going to be turning cartwheels. If he doesn't even get the minor changes he's asked for, then it's worse.
Comments
Although seriously, why include address if one is making a death threat? If the threat is just bluster, well, why was that the threat they reached for so easily? People are strange.
The in work benefits reform if achieved could save us hundred of millions per annum potentially as well as ensuring the migrants we receive are here for the right reasons. That may be trivial to you but it's better than a straight let's stay in with the status quo that eh could have gone for.
You view major reforms only as significant. I view any reform whatsoever as a change.
New Thread New Thread
That sead if we are to stay in, and much as I would want it to be otherwise, I suspect Remain will win the referendum regardless, in which case then whatever can be gained out of theses negotiations the better, even if it is small.