"I find that the FSB (Russian Security Service) operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin" the report concludes.
Rubbish the government have dissembling from day one on this case, hiding evidence and concocting a narrative, and that continued until 2015 when Cameron needed a cheap propaganda victory he could sell to the public in light of embarrassments elsewhere. No surprise the number of loons on here who lap it up, for their own reasons, quite obviously.
I can only presume that you agree with Putin that the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the collapse of the USSR. Comrade.
Putin is clearly mistaken here. The greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century was the collapse of the British Empire.
Well as a serious answer, I nominate one aspect of it - the partition of India.
Unless, of course, Germany - or Greece, Sweden, Italy, France, Denmark, Hungary, etc - suddenly decide to make their citizenship requirements just a bit easier, by several years, for these special suffering asylum people - in the full and certain knowledge that, having done that, their new guests will bugger off to Britain in short order. Look at Calais. How do people end up there, unless EU governments quietly do their best to wave them on to the UK?
There again, you see, your argument fails. In every way. You either haven't begun to think this through, or you are much stupider than I presumed. Out of kindness I shall assume the former.
That is a theoretical danger, certainly. Not one to take too seriously, I think - doling out citizenship in very large numbers is not going to be very popular in the countries concerned, is it? I think it's more likely that countries will be making it harder to get citizenship.
Many will bide their time, having learnt enough German to get by, before hot footing it over here as soon as possible. The language is the key.
They can't hot-foot it over here.
They can if they get a German - i.e. EU - passport. "Relaxing" the necessary requirements to be eligible for German passport is one very obvious way for Frau Merkel to help deal with the massive influx of migrants who seem to be currently overwhelming Germany.
Question I have about the EEA plan: would there be a majority in Parliament for it?
If the referendum goes Leave then presumably the Government will repeal the European Communities Act (and whatever else). It might put EEA accession in the same bill or a separate one. I think there'd be a large majority for the ECA repeal as people will be wary of seeming to obstruct the referendum result. What about the EEA part though?
I assume there are Conservative ultras who would see it as an attempt to engineer Remain by the back door. So there might not be a blue majority for it.
Would any opposition party help out? The temptation to let the Conservatives fight it out among themselves would be huge. Also, it wouldn't be hard to justify voting against the EEA accession: not in the referendum, Leave should mean Leave, what about workers' rights, what about Scotland etc etc.
The government would announce that it was invoking article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, it would not cancel the ECA Act immediately.
There would then be a three to five year period while new arrangements were organised, and we would officially leave the EU at some point in 2020 or 2021.
An attempt by Labour to attack Zac Goldsmith for "gross hypocrisy" over the London Living Wage (LLW) backfired today after it was revealed Sadiq Khan had himself recently advertised for a job paying below the official recommended hourly rate.
Question I have about the EEA plan: would there be a majority in Parliament for it?
If the referendum goes Leave then presumably the Government will repeal the European Communities Act (and whatever else). It might put EEA accession in the same bill or a separate one. I think there'd be a large majority for the ECA repeal as people will be wary of seeming to obstruct the referendum result. What about the EEA part though?
I assume there are Conservative ultras who would see it as an attempt to engineer Remain by the back door. So there might not be a blue majority for it.
Would any opposition party help out? The temptation to let the Conservatives fight it out among themselves would be huge. Also, it wouldn't be hard to justify voting against the EEA accession: not in the referendum, Leave should mean Leave, what about workers' rights, what about Scotland etc etc.
That's not something I'd considered. If there is no Parliamentary majority for leaving the EU, how exactly does one go about it?
The government of the day could surely sign up to every EU law if it wanted to, even if we left? Like a reverse of the SNP being omnipotent in a Scotland that is part of the UK
Then the public could vote to eject or keep that government at a GE
Many will bide their time, having learnt enough German to get by, before hot footing it over here as soon as possible. The language is the key.
They can't hot-foot it over here.
They can if they get a German - i.e. EU - passport. "Relaxing" the necessary requirements to be eligible for German passport is one very obvious way for Frau Merkel to help deal with the massive influx of migrants who seem to be currently overwhelming Germany.
That would be extremely difficult to get through the German parliament. Germany has always been one of the hardest countries in Europe to become a citizen of, and the Cologne attacks would hardly make MPs there keen to make it easier for refugees to become citizens.
Unless, of course, Germany - or Greece, Sweden, Italy, France, Denmark, Hungary, etc - suddenly decide to make their citizenship requirements just a bit easier, by several years, for these special suffering asylum people - in the full and certain knowledge that, having done that, their new guests will bugger off to Britain in short order. Look at Calais. How do people end up there, unless EU governments quietly do their best to wave them on to the UK?
There again, you see, your argument fails. In every way. You either haven't begun to think this through, or you are much stupider than I presumed. Out of kindness I shall assume the former.
That is a theoretical danger, certainly. Not one to take too seriously, I think - doling out citizenship in very large numbers is not going to be very popular in the countries concerned, is it? I think it's more likely that countries will be making it harder to get citizenship.
There is a bill currently in Austrian parliament (that is highly likely to pass) for doing exactly that right now.
That is a theoretical danger, certainly. Not one to take too seriously, I think - doling out citizenship in very large numbers is not going to be very popular in the countries concerned, is it? I think it's more likely that countries will be making it harder to get citizenship.
Well the UK has given British passports to over 1 million people in the last 6 years. Popular?
Many will bide their time, having learnt enough German to get by, before hot footing it over here as soon as possible. The language is the key.
They can't hot-foot it over here.
They can if they get a German - i.e. EU - passport. "Relaxing" the necessary requirements to be eligible for German passport is one very obvious way for Frau Merkel to help deal with the massive influx of migrants who seem to be currently overwhelming Germany.
That would be extremely difficult to get through the German parliament. Germany has always been one of the hardest countries in Europe to become a citizen of, and the Cologne attacks would hardly make MPs there keen to make it easier for refugees to become citizens.
But if making them citizens is the easiest way to 'export' them? Hand over a one way ticket to Luton with every passport.
Once they're in, they're in. Everyone knows it, the German people know it- and the refugees know it, hence their desperation. So it won't matter a fig if the government gives these people passports or not: it just makes it more likely they will LEAVE Germany. For Britain.
You might be right. I agree that Angela Merkel's approach has been stark raving bonkers.
But, to the extent you are right, why would the UK leaving the EU make any difference?
Question I have about the EEA plan: would there be a majority in Parliament for it?
If the referendum goes Leave then presumably the Government will repeal the European Communities Act (and whatever else). It might put EEA accession in the same bill or a separate one. I think there'd be a large majority for the ECA repeal as people will be wary of seeming to obstruct the referendum result. What about the EEA part though?
I assume there are Conservative ultras who would see it as an attempt to engineer Remain by the back door. So there might not be a blue majority for it.
Would any opposition party help out? The temptation to let the Conservatives fight it out among themselves would be huge. Also, it wouldn't be hard to justify voting against the EEA accession: not in the referendum, Leave should mean Leave, what about workers' rights, what about Scotland etc etc.
That's not something I'd considered. If there is no Parliamentary majority for leaving the EU, how exactly does one go about it?
The Tories elect a new leader who becomes PM. He/she three-line whips it - you'd prob get a max of 20-30 rebels.
You cover that with the DUP/UUP etc. and through a split Labour Party partly abstaining.
I accept it wouldn't be guaranteed but I don't think the whole House would unite to block a referendum decision.
Question I have about the EEA plan: would there be a majority in Parliament for it?
If the referendum goes Leave then presumably the Government will repeal the European Communities Act (and whatever else). It might put EEA accession in the same bill or a separate one. I think there'd be a large majority for the ECA repeal as people will be wary of seeming to obstruct the referendum result. What about the EEA part though?
I assume there are Conservative ultras who would see it as an attempt to engineer Remain by the back door. So there might not be a blue majority for it.
Would any opposition party help out? The temptation to let the Conservatives fight it out among themselves would be huge. Also, it wouldn't be hard to justify voting against the EEA accession: not in the referendum, Leave should mean Leave, what about workers' rights, what about Scotland etc etc.
That's not something I'd considered. If there is no Parliamentary majority for leaving the EU, how exactly does one go about it?
The Tories elect a new leader who becomes PM. He/she three-line whips it - you'd prob get a max of 20-30 rebels.
You cover that with the DUP/UUP etc. and through a split Labour Party partly abstaining.
I accept it wouldn't be guaranteed but I don't think the whole House would unite to block a referendum decision.
I don't think there would much difficulty in getting a majority for leaving the EU. MPs would be loathe to be seen to be openly flouting the referendum verdict.
My question is more to do with joining the EEA. That's not in the referendum and I would guess that the Government wouldn't have a majority from its own benches alone as some would see the EEA as almost as bad as the EU. They would say that it was a betrayal of the Leave result.
And I don't see why opposition MPs would help the Government out.
Unless, of course, Germany - or Greece, Sweden, Italy, France, Denmark, Hungary, etc - suddenly decide to make their citizenship requirements just a bit easier, by several years, for these special suffering asylum people - in the full and certain knowledge that, having done that, their new guests will bugger off to Britain in short order. Look at Calais. How do people end up there, unless EU governments quietly do their best to wave them on to the UK?
There again, you see, your argument fails. In every way. You either haven't begun to think this through, or you are much stupider than I presumed. Out of kindness I shall assume the former.
That is a theoretical danger, certainly. Not one to take too seriously, I think - doling out citizenship in very large numbers is not going to be very popular in the countries concerned, is it? I think it's more likely that countries will be making it harder to get citizenship.
Again, quite astonishingly silly. Do you really think Germany is going to deport 2m Syrians? How on earth would you even begin to do that. Cattle trucks, perhaps? The sheer numbers make it impossible.
Once they're in, they're in. Everyone knows it, the German people know it- and the refugees know it, hence their desperation. So it won't matter a fig if the government gives these people passports or not: it just makes it more likely they will LEAVE Germany. For Britain.
It will be a popular move, for precisely that reason. Some reading for you.
"we met so many Nigerians from Germany, or Somalis from Denmark, that we asked Oxford University's Migration Observatory to crunch the numbers on how many EU migrants are not originally from Europe. They found that 141,000 people, 7% of those who came to the UK under EU rules were born outside the continent. Somalis are one of the biggest such groups, with an estimated 20,000 coming to the UK from the Netherlands alone. Studies show that between one third and a half of the entire Dutch Somali community has moved to the UK."
One reason they come here? We have so many mosques.
If we REMAIN we will become the destination for millions of non-EU-born, new EU citizens
Here's another reason:
""It's not that the British are more friendly than the Dutch, it is just that they let us stay as we are. Somalis can integrate without losing their cultural identity," he said."
The basic trouble with the EU and its four freedoms was that they were written and signed at a time when no one thought that it ever might become a conduit for mass migration. Didn't cross their minds.
They were thinking of a French power engineer working for a year on a project in Belgium. Or a Dutch businessman setting up a branch of his shop in Dresden.
It has now become dogma - not unlike the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, and I think EU leaders view it similarly - so there's not latitude whatsoever for common sense unless the whole edifice comes crashing down.
Question I have about the EEA plan: would there be a majority in Parliament for it?
If the referendum goes Leave then presumably the Government will repeal the European Communities Act (and whatever else). It might put EEA accession in the same bill or a separate one. I think there'd be a large majority for the ECA repeal as people will be wary of seeming to obstruct the referendum result. What about the EEA part though?
I assume there are Conservative ultras who would see it as an attempt to engineer Remain by the back door. So there might not be a blue majority for it.
Would any opposition party help out? The temptation to let the Conservatives fight it out among themselves would be huge. Also, it wouldn't be hard to justify voting against the EEA accession: not in the referendum, Leave should mean Leave, what about workers' rights, what about Scotland etc etc.
That's not something I'd considered. If there is no Parliamentary majority for leaving the EU, how exactly does one go about it?
The Tories elect a new leader who becomes PM. He/she three-line whips it - you'd prob get a max of 20-30 rebels.
You cover that with the DUP/UUP etc. and through a split Labour Party partly abstaining.
I accept it wouldn't be guaranteed but I don't think the whole House would unite to block a referendum decision.
I don't think there would much difficulty in getting a majority for leaving the EU. MPs would be loathe to be seen to be openly flouting the referendum verdict.
My question is more to do with joining the EEA. That's not in the referendum and I would guess that the Government wouldn't have a majority from its own benches alone as some would see the EEA as almost as bad as the EU. They would say that it was a betrayal of the Leave result.
And I don't see why opposition MPs would help the Government out.
Fair point. If the deal can't pass the House we'd fall back on WTO rules so in the event some Tory BOO'ers didn't want to vote for it then I think it's just as likely some Labour and LD MPs would vote for the EEA as the least worst option.
Do other posters think there will be a 'shy Leave' vote? I'm thinking back to the Irish gay marriage vote, which saw the antis do better than the polls suggested, probably because the political classes and the media lined up behind the pro position.
I think some people will support leave but be reluctant to admit it for fear of being thought a kipper. What do people think?
Do other posters think there will be a 'shy Leave' vote? I'm thinking back to the Irish gay marriage vote, which saw the antis do better than the polls suggested, probably because the political classes and the media lined up behind the pro position.
I think some people will support leave but be reluctant to admit it for fear of being thought a kipper. What do people think?
Given most of the tabloids back Leave unlikely, Leave will be almost as vocal as Yes in Scotland if anything there could be a 'shy Remain'
The basic trouble with the EU and its four freedoms was that they were written and signed at a time when no one thought that it ever might become a conduit for mass migration. Didn't cross their minds.
They were thinking of a French power engineer working for a year on a project in Belgium. Or a Dutch businessman setting up a branch of his shop in Dresden.
It has now become dogma - not unlike the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, and I think EU leaders view it similarly - so there's not latitude whatsoever for common sense unless the whole edifice comes crashing down.
Do you think that is because it expanded too quickly. A smaller EU where the GDPs per capita are similar would be better.
Comments
There would then be a three to five year period while new arrangements were organised, and we would officially leave the EU at some point in 2020 or 2021.
It's got a certain humour to it
https://t.co/A1YDY0WrwF https://t.co/ZvAnOQEOBC
Then the public could vote to eject or keep that government at a GE
Just so everyone knows what you have to do to become a German citizen.
New Thread New Thread
But, to the extent you are right, why would the UK leaving the EU make any difference?
You cover that with the DUP/UUP etc. and through a split Labour Party partly abstaining.
I accept it wouldn't be guaranteed but I don't think the whole House would unite to block a referendum decision.
Looking forward to Labour press briefing on Litvinenko https://t.co/cEAXmkq6Oq
My question is more to do with joining the EEA. That's not in the referendum and I would guess that the Government wouldn't have a majority from its own benches alone as some would see the EEA as almost as bad as the EU. They would say that it was a betrayal of the Leave result.
And I don't see why opposition MPs would help the Government out.
""It's not that the British are more friendly than the Dutch, it is just that they let us stay as we are. Somalis can integrate without losing their cultural identity," he said."
We let them stay as they are.
They were thinking of a French power engineer working for a year on a project in Belgium. Or a Dutch businessman setting up a branch of his shop in Dresden.
It has now become dogma - not unlike the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, and I think EU leaders view it similarly - so there's not latitude whatsoever for common sense unless the whole edifice comes crashing down.
I think some people will support leave but be reluctant to admit it for fear of being thought a kipper. What do people think?