EU Officials acknowledged giving powers to an EU agency to send in guards — some of whom could be armed and empowered with the right to force migrants into registration centres — over the objections of a national government could lead to tensions."
Member states will comply, for the greater good you understand. – Heard that before. #WWII
Michael Bloomberg is considering a run, whatever that article says. PBers be assured, I have actual knowledge of this :-)
If he runs, tell us in advance so I can bet on Trump winning the presidency, as Bloomberg will get more votes from democrats than republicans, like John Anderson did in 1980.
Bloomberg will win fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republicans as much as he wins centrist Dems, the establishment GOP would certainly vote for Bloomberg over Trump so Hillary has little to fear from his running, an independent Sanders run would be more dangerous for her
“I think you can have three candidates—Cruz, Trump, and Rubio—go all the way to California [which votes on June 7],” says Republican strategist Scott Reed, the campaign manager for Bob Dole in 1996. “Because of the way the calendar is designed, with so many delegates being proportional up until March 15, then winner-take-all, it’s going to be very hard for someone to get to the magic number [needed for the nomination] until later than ever. California may really matter this time.”
You should have asked me instead, I'm much better at predicting the GOP race so far than any other, so far close to (if not at) 100% accuracy.
So here's the list of states that matter: 1. Iowa If Trump wins Iowa, he wins the nomination-period. If Trump doesn't win Iowa, then the person who does will be his main challenger, unless Trump also loses N.H.
2. N.Hampshire If Trump hasn't won Iowa, then he needs N.H or he's out, same goes for those who haven't won Iowa. If the person who won Iowa also wins N.H. then he is the nominee.
3. S.Carolina The delusional's last stand, if those who have failed to win the last 2 are still in the race and have lost S.C. then they are will truly be sidelined by everyone including their last supporters.
4. The southern states on Super Tuesday. Trump has to win a majority of those the states to keep momentum. His challenger has to win his home state to avoid a collapse, and a majority of southern states to build momentum.
Although Scott Reed was a campaign manager 20 years ago for Bob Dole, he has no idea about the modern world, especially if his last hope to nominate Rubio is California.
EU Officials acknowledged giving powers to an EU agency to send in guards — some of whom could be armed and empowered with the right to force migrants into registration centres — over the objections of a national government could lead to tensions."
Member states will comply, for the greater good you understand. – Heard that before. #WWII
'If he runs, tell us in advance so I can bet on Trump winning the presidency, as Bloomberg will get more votes from democrats than republicans, like John Anderson did in 1980.'
The GOP establishment were firmly behind the Reagan Bush ticket, today's GOP establishment would rather hold their nose and vote for Hillary than Trump, at least in the privacy of the booth, in fact I would expect the entire Bush family to do exactly that, the Bushes are now on amicable terms with the Clintons or at least Bill, they clearly despise Trump for toppling Jeb from his birthright
In Scotland its who will lose least badly v the SNP. Its too early for voters to have their revenge on the SNP, but that moment is moving closer, just not this time.
EU Officials acknowledged giving powers to an EU agency to send in guards — some of whom could be armed and empowered with the right to force migrants into registration centres — over the objections of a national government could lead to tensions."
Member states will comply, for the greater good you understand. – Heard that before. #WWII
Great news! Just need an EU police force, criminal justice system and army.
Why is Dave allowing our forces to be used in this EU power grab:
David Cameron, who will join EU leaders as they discuss the plan at a summit in Brussels tomorrow, has offered the use of British assets to help secure Europe's external border even though we are not a part of the travel zone.
Not an especially notable story, but I was childishly amused by the name of the poor chap who got shot: Scott Watmuff. If ever a name deserved a question mark...
Why is Dave allowing our forces to be used in this EU power grab:
David Cameron, who will join EU leaders as they discuss the plan at a summit in Brussels tomorrow, has offered the use of British assets to help secure Europe's external border even though we are not a part of the travel zone.
Presumably because he thinks it's in Britain's interests that mainland Europe should not be overwhelmed with migrants.
I know that kippers hate the EU more than Windows 8 but that seems like a reasonable calculation to me, especially since Britain doesn't have to reciprocate.
Why is Dave allowing our forces to be used in this EU power grab:
David Cameron, who will join EU leaders as they discuss the plan at a summit in Brussels tomorrow, has offered the use of British assets to help secure Europe's external border even though we are not a part of the travel zone.
Rubio might have violated Congressional Ethics Rules, it's a big deal, last time it cost the head of Jim Wright then House Speaker in 1989, however since Rubio is leaving politics anyway and not seeking re-election it doesn't affect republicans in the Senate:
"Just seven weeks shy of the Iowa caucuses, Rubio worst-case scenario isn’t what the Ethics Committee might do to him following a lengthy investigation, given that he’s already made it clear he plans to leave the chamber next year either way. It’s what his GOP rivals might do with this new tidbit in those seven weeks, given Rubio’s already well-documented problems with money."
But it will still terminate his campaign to run for president.
Clinton 50% Trump 44% in the ABC poll general election numbers
Not an especially notable story, but I was childishly amused by the name of the poor chap who got shot: Scott Watmuff. If ever a name deserved a question mark...
If the woman at the centre of the love triangle had jumped the other way, she could have become Rubbina Watmuff. Might have been a bit awkward in the doctor's waiting room having that name called out.
Not an especially notable story, but I was childishly amused by the name of the poor chap who got shot: Scott Watmuff. If ever a name deserved a question mark...
If the woman at the centre of the love triangle had jumped the other way, she could have become Rubbina Watmuff. Might have been a bit awkward in the doctor's waiting room having that name called out.
Why is Dave allowing our forces to be used in this EU power grab:
David Cameron, who will join EU leaders as they discuss the plan at a summit in Brussels tomorrow, has offered the use of British assets to help secure Europe's external border even though we are not a part of the travel zone.
Presumably because he thinks it's in Britain's interests that mainland Europe should not be overwhelmed with migrants.
I know that kippers hate the EU more than Windows 8 but that seems like a reasonable calculation to me, especially since Britain doesn't have to reciprocate. Their powers are excessive and we should play no part in it. A border force invited into a country is acceptable. A border force which can enter a country without permission is not.
I am not a Kipper.
I know europhiles struggle with the concept of national sovereignty so maybe it is hard to see what is wrong with our participation in this new version of Frontex.
False analogy I think. If our own borders are secure what happens in Greece is not a priority. Leaky borders in Greece or elsewhere only matter if they provide an opening to the UK.
Why is Dave allowing our forces to be used in this EU power grab:
David Cameron, who will join EU leaders as they discuss the plan at a summit in Brussels tomorrow, has offered the use of British assets to help secure Europe's external border even though we are not a part of the travel zone.
Presumably because he thinks it's in Britain's interests that mainland Europe should not be overwhelmed with migrants.
I know that kippers hate the EU more than Windows 8 but that seems like a reasonable calculation to me, especially since Britain doesn't have to reciprocate.
Their powers are excessive and we should play no part in it. A border force invited into a country is acceptable. A border force which can enter a country without permission is not.
I am not a Kipper.
I know europhiles struggle with the concept of national sovereignty so maybe it is hard to see what is wrong with our participation in this new version of Frontex.
We are voluntarily using our military to assist our neighbours, just as we voluntarily use our military in Syria and other arenas across the globe. That is entirely reasonable.
Why is Dave allowing our forces to be used in this EU power grab:
David Cameron, who will join EU leaders as they discuss the plan at a summit in Brussels tomorrow, has offered the use of British assets to help secure Europe's external border even though we are not a part of the travel zone.
Presumably because he thinks it's in Britain's interests that mainland Europe should not be overwhelmed with migrants.
I know that kippers hate the EU more than Windows 8 but that seems like a reasonable calculation to me, especially since Britain doesn't have to reciprocate.
Their powers are excessive and we should play no part in it. A border force invited into a country is acceptable. A border force which can enter a country without permission is not.
I am not a Kipper.
I know europhiles struggle with the concept of national sovereignty so maybe it is hard to see what is wrong with our participation in this new version of Frontex.
Given the choice between seeing fresh waves of migrants coursing through southern and eastern Europe next year, destabilising the entire continent, and participating in a Europe-wide scheme to secure borders more effectively, I'm going for option b. It's in Britain's own interests to see those borders secured better.
I agree with you that invading Greece to secure the outer border of Schengen is daft. A better idea would be to introduce a mechanism to eject countries from Schengen that refuse help when a qualified majority determine that its borders are being inadequately policed.
False analogy I think. If our own borders are secure what happens in Greece is not a priority. Leaky borders in Greece or elsewhere only matter if they provide an opening to the UK.
Unstable neighbours are a negative on us even if we are ourselves secure.
House of Cards fictional and conniving President Underwood will be making a special announcement during the real-life Republican debate tonight, the show’s Twitter account announced Tuesday.
GOP candidates are doing their pre-debate walkthroughs at the gorgeous facility at The Venetian (owned by Trump friend Sheldon Adelson).
Candidates tend to not withdraw after an alleged poor debate performance, which is subjective, but after bad primary votes, which isn't. If the donors get cold feet then all bets are off.
So it's possible that someone may withdraw after this evening, but probable after the Iowa Caucuses, and certain after the first primary in New Hampshire.
By the time South Carolina results are in the field will have thinned out considerably.
False analogy I think. If our own borders are secure what happens in Greece is not a priority. Leaky borders in Greece or elsewhere only matter if they provide an opening to the UK.
No border is totally secure. The number of people crossing the Iron Curtain or from North Korea into China are testament to that.
An alternative way to look at it is like this: two borders each stopping 80% of people are more effective than a single border stopping 95%. And the cost of stopping each incremental percent rises sharply, so the layered approach is probably more cost effective to boot.
Our commitment to the EU border is reactive to events - so not permanent - and we only contribute a small part of the total required force. So I'd hope it's relatively inexpensive.
'Russian missiles only kill enemy combatants. Anyone else remains unscathed.' or some such nonsense.
Yeah, who would be so dickish as to claim that their bombs & missiles only take out the bad guys and always spare civilians?
I don't think anyone [important] has claimed that. That would indeed be a monumentally stupid claim. Up there with $120 oil being a guaranteed source of revenue.
Perfectly valid to discuss the record to date, though, and stress the procedures in place to minimise the risk of civilians being caught up in a strike.
Just to explain my "yes and no" remark: France, Belgium and the Netherlands are our neighbours. They are in Schengen with Greece so Schengen (including Greece) is our neighbour.
Whether we like Schengen or not is inconsequential.
'Russian missiles only kill enemy combatants. Anyone else remains unscathed.' or some such nonsense.
Yeah, who would be so dickish as to claim that their bombs & missiles only take out the bad guys and always spare civilians?
I don't think anyone [important] has claimed that. That would indeed be a monumentally stupid claim. Up there with $120 oil being a guaranteed source of revenue.
Perfectly valid to discuss the record to date, though, and stress the procedures in place to minimise the risk of civilians being caught up in a strike.
Yawn, '£200bn oil boom' etc, etc.
Some shocking misreporting going on..
'David Cameron: Syria air strikes unlikely to lead to civilian deaths – live'
'MoD says British missiles can ‘eliminate’ civilian casualties'
'Russian missiles only kill enemy combatants. Anyone else remains unscathed.' or some such nonsense.
Yeah, who would be so dickish as to claim that their bombs & missiles only take out the bad guys and always spare civilians?
I don't think anyone [important] has claimed that. That would indeed be a monumentally stupid claim. Up there with $120 oil being a guaranteed source of revenue.
Perfectly valid to discuss the record to date, though, and stress the procedures in place to minimise the risk of civilians being caught up in a strike.
Yawn, '£200bn oil boom' etc, etc.
Some shocking misreporting going on..
'David Cameron: Syria air strikes unlikely to lead to civilian deaths – live'
'MoD says British missiles can ‘eliminate’ civilian casualties'
It seems to me that it is in Britain's interest that the Greek border is secured from overwhelming migration. It does, however, seem to be potentially a new change to the sovereignty of the EU versus member states, at least those on the border. If I understand it correctly, it sounds like the new border force can forcibly take migrants to immigration centres regardless of the will of the country whose border they are policing and where the centre is sited. Have I got this correct? If so, has the EU ever had the power of physical force on a member nation's territory before?
House of Cards fictional and conniving President Underwood will be making a special announcement during the real-life Republican debate tonight, the show’s Twitter account announced Tuesday.
It seems to me that it is in Britain's interest that the Greek border is secured from overwhelming migration. It does, however, seem to be potentially a new change to the sovereignty of the EU versus member states, at least those on the border. If I understand it correctly, it sounds like the new border force can forcibly take migrants to immigration centres regardless of the will of the country whose border they are policing and where the centre is sited. Have I got this correct? If so, has the EU ever had the power of physical force on a member nation's territory before?
Armed guards herding people in to camps. As other posters have said, can't see it happening. Way too much historical symbolism.
Patrick Kidd The quiz set by @_peterriddell for today's Times politics team lunch (I know there's a typo). Answers follow shortly https://t.co/V6401pu8f5
“I think you can have three candidates—Cruz, Trump, and Rubio—go all the way to California [which votes on June 7],” says Republican strategist Scott Reed, the campaign manager for Bob Dole in 1996. “Because of the way the calendar is designed, with so many delegates being proportional up until March 15, then winner-take-all, it’s going to be very hard for someone to get to the magic number [needed for the nomination] until later than ever. California may really matter this time.”
You should have asked me instead, I'm much better at predicting the GOP race so far than any other, so far close to (if not at) 100% accuracy.
So here's the list of states that matter: 1. Iowa If Trump wins Iowa, he wins the nomination-period. If Trump doesn't win Iowa, then the person who does will be his main challenger, unless Trump also loses N.H.
2. N.Hampshire If Trump hasn't won Iowa, then he needs N.H or he's out, same goes for those who haven't won Iowa. If the person who won Iowa also wins N.H. then he is the nominee.
3. S.Carolina The delusional's last stand, if those who have failed to win the last 2 are still in the race and have lost S.C. then they are will truly be sidelined by everyone including their last supporters.
4. The southern states on Super Tuesday. Trump has to win a majority of those the states to keep momentum. His challenger has to win his home state to avoid a collapse, and a majority of southern states to build momentum.
Although Scott Reed was a campaign manager 20 years ago for Bob Dole, he has no idea about the modern world, especially if his last hope to nominate Rubio is California.
It seems to me that it is in Britain's interest that the Greek border is secured from overwhelming migration. It does, however, seem to be potentially a new change to the sovereignty of the EU versus member states, at least those on the border. If I understand it correctly, it sounds like the new border force can forcibly take migrants to immigration centres regardless of the will of the country whose border they are policing and where the centre is sited. Have I got this correct? If so, has the EU ever had the power of physical force on a member nation's territory before?
These proposals, regardless of the stated public reasons given if agreed, are another small but significant step in to consolidation and ever closer union, of what where independent nations in to one large contrary.
For those who are familiar with the history of the German unification, this is so similar to Prusher using the events of 1848, to consolidate there power over the 'German Confederation' as it was then. The same way that the EURO has been used in the same way that the Zollverein, to bind the bits together economically.
I have no desire to be part of a single European state, especially one that is as inwardly looking, burocratic and authoritarian, as the one that is emerging. It is time to say good by peacefully and wishing those that want to be part of the new nation all the best.
Just been VI'd by You Gov. Lots of questions on policies & campaigns, HS2, Fracking, Trump etc and lots of end of year questions on favorite movie and reality show etc.
It seems to me that it is in Britain's interest that the Greek border is secured from overwhelming migration. It does, however, seem to be potentially a new change to the sovereignty of the EU versus member states, at least those on the border. If I understand it correctly, it sounds like the new border force can forcibly take migrants to immigration centres regardless of the will of the country whose border they are policing and where the centre is sited. Have I got this correct? If so, has the EU ever had the power of physical force on a member nation's territory before?
These proposals, regardless of the stated public reasons given if agreed, are another small but significant step in to consolidation and ever closer union, of what where independent nations in to one large contrary.
For those who are familiar with the history of the German unification, this is so similar to Prusher using the events of 1848, to consolidate there power over the 'German Confederation' as it was then. The same way that the EURO has been used in the same way that the Zollverein, to bind the bits together economically.
I have no desire to be part of a single European state, especially one that is as inwardly looking, burocratic and authoritarian, as the one that is emerging. It is time to say good by peacefully and wishing those that want to be part of the new nation all the best.
I don't know how you managed to mispell Prussia after getting the much trickier Zollverein correct!
EU Officials acknowledged giving powers to an EU agency to send in guards — some of whom could be armed and empowered with the right to force migrants into registration centres — over the objections of a national government could lead to tensions."
Member states will comply, for the greater good you understand. – Heard that before. #WWII
It really is time for us to leave.
It's like being in a pub and it's all "kicking off" and someone in your party wants to help calm tensions, another wants to just hang around and see what will happen, whilst you're edging towards the door... "guys... let's just... go!"
Mr. 1983, it may also be a test-run for China when it comes to the islands disputed between themselves and Japan (who currently possess them). Taiwan also claims those islands but is not really in a position to pursue that.
The corollary of Chinese militarist expansion (almost as soon as he became president, Xi Jinping was said to be keen on bolstering the military) may be the resurgence of Japanese nationalism and willingness to deploy military assets, even if only in self-defence.
How India reacts will also be interesting to see.
I don't think that's a particularly fair competition these days (except in the sense of Japan being a US proxy).
India won't do a thing. It's sensible for them to be diplomatically in the middle and let the great powers court them. I also just don't think they'd be very effective for some reason. If you have those sorts of financial resources and you can't organise a Commonwealth Games without dissentry in the pool and bridges falling down, what hope have you of sending an Armada to sort out the Chinese?
China spanked India in '62 iirc. No earthly reason why they couldn't do it again.
It seems to me that it is in Britain's interest that the Greek border is secured from overwhelming migration. It does, however, seem to be potentially a new change to the sovereignty of the EU versus member states, at least those on the border. If I understand it correctly, it sounds like the new border force can forcibly take migrants to immigration centres regardless of the will of the country whose border they are policing and where the centre is sited. Have I got this correct? If so, has the EU ever had the power of physical force on a member nation's territory before?
These proposals, regardless of the stated public reasons given if agreed, are another small but significant step in to consolidation and ever closer union, of what where independent nations in to one large contrary.
For those who are familiar with the history of the German unification, this is so similar to Prusher using the events of 1848, to consolidate there power over the 'German Confederation' as it was then. The same way that the EURO has been used in the same way that the Zollverein, to bind the bits together economically.
I have no desire to be part of a single European state, especially one that is as inwardly looking, burocratic and authoritarian, as the one that is emerging. It is time to say good by peacefully and wishing those that want to be part of the new nation all the best.
I don't know how you managed to mispell Prussia after getting the much trickier Zollverein correct!
It seems to me that it is in Britain's interest that the Greek border is secured from overwhelming migration. It does, however, seem to be potentially a new change to the sovereignty of the EU versus member states, at least those on the border. If I understand it correctly, it sounds like the new border force can forcibly take migrants to immigration centres regardless of the will of the country whose border they are policing and where the centre is sited. Have I got this correct? If so, has the EU ever had the power of physical force on a member nation's territory before?
These proposals, regardless of the stated public reasons given if agreed, are another small but significant step in to consolidation and ever closer union, of what where independent nations in to one large contrary.
For those who are familiar with the history of the German unification, this is so similar to Prusher using the events of 1848, to consolidate there power over the 'German Confederation' as it was then. The same way that the EURO has been used in the same way that the Zollverein, to bind the bits together economically.
I have no desire to be part of a single European state, especially one that is as inwardly looking, burocratic and authoritarian, as the one that is emerging. It is time to say good by peacefully and wishing those that want to be part of the new nation all the best.
I don't know how you managed to mispell Prussia after getting the much trickier Zollverein correct!
Luck, thank you for pointing out my mistake, I hope it has not distracted form the point I was trying to make.
I am dyslectic and normally rely on the spell checker, I got Zollverein correct because I copied it, But must have missed the Prusher/Prussia bit. I apologise to anybody who was confused by this, but honestly think that most people could work out who I was talking about.
It seems to me that it is in Britain's interest that the Greek border is secured from overwhelming migration. It does, however, seem to be potentially a new change to the sovereignty of the EU versus member states, at least those on the border. If I understand it correctly, it sounds like the new border force can forcibly take migrants to immigration centres regardless of the will of the country whose border they are policing and where the centre is sited. Have I got this correct? If so, has the EU ever had the power of physical force on a member nation's territory before?
These proposals, regardless of the stated public reasons given if agreed, are another small but significant step in to consolidation and ever closer union, of what where independent nations in to one large contrary.
For those who are familiar with the history of the German unification, this is so similar to Prusher using the events of 1848, to consolidate there power over the 'German Confederation' as it was then. The same way that the EURO has been used in the same way that the Zollverein, to bind the bits together economically.
I have no desire to be part of a single European state, especially one that is as inwardly looking, burocratic and authoritarian, as the one that is emerging. It is time to say good by peacefully and wishing those that want to be part of the new nation all the best.
Entertainingly, the UK has a complete veto on there ever being a single European superstate.
It seems to me that it is in Britain's interest that the Greek border is secured from overwhelming migration. It does, however, seem to be potentially a new change to the sovereignty of the EU versus member states, at least those on the border. If I understand it correctly, it sounds like the new border force can forcibly take migrants to immigration centres regardless of the will of the country whose border they are policing and where the centre is sited. Have I got this correct? If so, has the EU ever had the power of physical force on a member nation's territory before?
These proposals, regardless of the stated public reasons given if agreed, are another small but significant step in to consolidation and ever closer union, of what where independent nations in to one large contrary.
For those who are familiar with the history of the German unification, this is so similar to Prusher using the events of 1848, to consolidate there power over the 'German Confederation' as it was then. The same way that the EURO has been used in the same way that the Zollverein, to bind the bits together economically.
I have no desire to be part of a single European state, especially one that is as inwardly looking, burocratic and authoritarian, as the one that is emerging. It is time to say good by peacefully and wishing those that want to be part of the new nation all the best.
Entertainingly, the UK has a complete veto on there ever being a single European superstate.
As does Russia, the US and France.
Nothing the ECJ can do about it either.....
Also brings to mind the dissatisfaction felt by some Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, Cornish, Northumberlanders, Mancunians, Londoners, and many more unhappy with the centralisation to Westminster.
Comments
Member states will comply, for the greater good you understand. – Heard that before. #WWII
'If he runs, tell us in advance so I can bet on Trump winning the presidency, as Bloomberg will get more votes from democrats than republicans, like John Anderson did in 1980.'
The GOP establishment were firmly behind the Reagan Bush ticket, today's GOP establishment would rather hold their nose and vote for Hillary than Trump, at least in the privacy of the booth, in fact I would expect the entire Bush family to do exactly that, the Bushes are now on amicable terms with the Clintons or at least Bill, they clearly despise Trump for toppling Jeb from his birthright
Because he is desperate to be part of the 'top table'...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35100078
Presumably because he thinks it's in Britain's interests that mainland Europe should not be overwhelmed with migrants.
I know that kippers hate the EU more than Windows 8 but that seems like a reasonable calculation to me, especially since Britain doesn't have to reciprocate.
It's 99.99% certain that such a force would never be deployed in the UK. It's also pretty clear that better secured borders elsewhere in the EU is very beneficial for us. That's why.
If we have 'assets' to spare why not use them to secure our own borders, which as we know are from being as secure as we would like?
I know that kippers hate the EU more than Windows 8 but that seems like a reasonable calculation to me, especially since Britain doesn't have to reciprocate.
Their powers are excessive and we should play no part in it. A border force invited into a country is acceptable. A border force which can enter a country without permission is not.
I am not a Kipper.
I know europhiles struggle with the concept of national sovereignty so maybe it is hard to see what is wrong with our participation in this new version of Frontex.
I am not a Kipper.
I know europhiles struggle with the concept of national sovereignty so maybe it is hard to see what is wrong with our participation in this new version of Frontex.
We are voluntarily using our military to assist our neighbours, just as we voluntarily use our military in Syria and other arenas across the globe. That is entirely reasonable.
I am not a Kipper.
I know europhiles struggle with the concept of national sovereignty so maybe it is hard to see what is wrong with our participation in this new version of Frontex.
Given the choice between seeing fresh waves of migrants coursing through southern and eastern Europe next year, destabilising the entire continent, and participating in a Europe-wide scheme to secure borders more effectively, I'm going for option b. It's in Britain's own interests to see those borders secured better.
I agree with you that invading Greece to secure the outer border of Schengen is daft. A better idea would be to introduce a mechanism to eject countries from Schengen that refuse help when a qualified majority determine that its borders are being inadequately policed.
Candidates tend to not withdraw after an alleged poor debate performance, which is subjective, but after bad primary votes, which isn't. If the donors get cold feet then all bets are off.
So it's possible that someone may withdraw after this evening, but probable after the Iowa Caucuses, and certain after the first primary in New Hampshire.
By the time South Carolina results are in the field will have thinned out considerably.
An alternative way to look at it is like this: two borders each stopping 80% of people are more effective than a single border stopping 95%. And the cost of stopping each incremental percent rises sharply, so the layered approach is probably more cost effective to boot.
Our commitment to the EU border is reactive to events - so not permanent - and we only contribute a small part of the total required force. So I'd hope it's relatively inexpensive.
Perfectly valid to discuss the record to date, though, and stress the procedures in place to minimise the risk of civilians being caught up in a strike.
Whether we like Schengen or not is inconsequential.
Some shocking misreporting going on..
'David Cameron: Syria air strikes unlikely to lead to civilian deaths – live'
'MoD says British missiles can ‘eliminate’ civilian casualties'
http://tinyurl.com/q67fhux
Given San Bernadino, it's understandable but a tad overreaction.
It seems to me that it is in Britain's interest that the Greek border is secured from overwhelming migration. It does, however, seem to be potentially a new change to the sovereignty of the EU versus member states, at least those on the border. If I understand it correctly, it sounds like the new border force can forcibly take migrants to immigration centres regardless of the will of the country whose border they are policing and where the centre is sited. Have I got this correct? If so, has the EU ever had the power of physical force on a member nation's territory before?
As other posters have said, can't see it happening.
Way too much historical symbolism.
The quiz set by @_peterriddell for today's Times politics team lunch (I know there's a typo). Answers follow shortly
https://t.co/V6401pu8f5
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/CampaignsElections/ss/5-Iowa-Caucus-Winners-Who-Lost-The-Nomination.htm
For those who are familiar with the history of the German unification, this is so similar to Prusher using the events of 1848, to consolidate there power over the 'German Confederation' as it was then. The same way that the EURO has been used in the same way that the Zollverein, to bind the bits together economically.
I have no desire to be part of a single European state, especially one that is as inwardly looking, burocratic and authoritarian, as the one that is emerging. It is time to say good by peacefully and wishing those that want to be part of the new nation all the best.
Lots of questions on policies & campaigns, HS2, Fracking, Trump etc
and lots of end of year questions on favorite movie and reality show etc.
It's like being in a pub and it's all "kicking off" and someone in your party wants to help calm tensions, another wants to just hang around and see what will happen, whilst you're edging towards the door... "guys... let's just... go!"
I am dyslectic and normally rely on the spell checker, I got Zollverein correct because I copied it, But must have missed the Prusher/Prussia bit. I apologise to anybody who was confused by this, but honestly think that most people could work out who I was talking about.
As does Russia, the US and France.
Nothing the ECJ can do about it either.....